Mark Ethan Smith: For real?
Jim Rees
hoax? What is she like in person? Would anyone who has met her please
comment?
By the way, in a free society, I think we need these people, regardless
of whether we agree with them or not.
Genji Schmeder
>Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing)
>
>of whether we agree with them or not.
Mark Ethan Smith has not yet replied to my demand last week for either
the names of the "woman hating" programmers working at UCB computer
center or a retraction of his/her accusation. (Smith's account,
era1987@violet, has been logged in several times since my message
appeared in news.) Smith also claimed that woman haters here have
maliciously tampered with news software, another serious charge.
No society needs groundless attacks on anyone's character.
Larry Lippman
> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing)
>
> the names of the "woman hating" programmers working at UCB computer
> center or a retraction of his/her accusation. (Smith's account,
> era1987@violet, has been logged in several times since my message
> appeared in news.) Smith also claimed that woman haters here have
> maliciously tampered with news software, another serious charge.
>
> No society needs groundless attacks on anyone's character.
No Usenet site should have anonymous users. Usenet is not (or
SHOULD not) be conducted as a juvenile BBS. Usenet feeds are propagated
in part by institutions using public funds. Public funds should not be
used to propagate the whimsical, irresponsible ravings of a person who
uses fraud and deception in concealing their identity. If "Smith" wishes
to engage in such anonymous activity, let him/her/it confine postings
to privately owned BBS's - not Usenet.
I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer
which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon
any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to:
1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
about "Smith".
2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms.
<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
<> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/
<> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer
<which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon
<any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to:
<
<1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
< about "Smith".
<
<2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms.
And I view the above as horsefeathers. Firstly, it's hard to tell what
you are complaining about.
Are you complaining that era...@violet.berkeley.edu isn't tied to
some real name? Do you think that it should be "mark," like yours? Or
maybe mes, like mine? Nuts to that. The UCB Computer Center, unlike
many other facilities, allows users to choose whatever they wish as a
login name. This is a *good* thing. It allows people freedom of
expression in their user names. So we get era1987, sikukkut, kittycat,
antwerp, and the like. Likewise, those that force their idea of what
users name should be (leading to attrocieties like "mwmeyer", or
AA1487) don't always use the same names. So long as the poster in
question always puts the same signature/name (choose one) in the
posting, who cares? I recognize people by that, not by some bogus
network address. As far as I can tell, MES has always signed things as
MES. What more do you want?
Or are you complaining that you can't find a physical person to map to
"era...@violet.berkeley.edu"? So what? You think you can find a
physical person to map to "m...@eris.berkeley.edu"? If so, it's because
I've chosen to make that information publicly available. But you may
not be able to anyway. Likewise, I don't know a physical person to map
to "la...@kitty.UUCP". Doesn't bother me - why should it?
I will assure you that we can find MES if we really want to. Either
that, or turn off era1987 for non-payment of bills :-). I assume that
people responsible for kitty.UUCP can find you if they need to. Since
I can always complain to postmaster@site or root@site or some such,
there's no need for me to be able to find any given user on a site. So
long as this remains true, no user is really anonymous on USENet.
<mike
--
The sun is shining slowly. Mike Meyer
The birds are flying so low. m...@berkeley.edu
Honey, you're my one and only. ucbvax!mwm
So pay me what you owe me. m...@ucbjade.BITNET
j...@alice.uucp
Mark Ethan Smith is real, and "Mark Ethan Smith", I've been told by
quite a few people, is the person's REAL name, no alias, anonymity,
etc, included.
Lots of people don't agree with Mark, myself included.
That doesn't make Mark unreal.
Larry Lippman can read soc.women for himself, and find Mark Smith
right at home, there.
--
TEDDY BEARS HAVE *GREEN* EYES!
"...and a song in my heart, and it's ..."
(ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
HASA, A+S divisions.Copyright JJ 1987. All rights to mail reserved, USENET redistribution otherwise granted to those who allow free redistritution.
darci chapman
BTW, yes though we have not met in person.
> No Usenet site should have anonymous users.
Since Mark does sign his articles with his legal name how does this imply
that he is an anonymous user?
>Public funds should not be
>used to propagate the whimsical, irresponsible ravings of a person who
>uses fraud and deception in concealing their identity.
Excuse me, but since Mark Ethan Smith is the legal name of the person you
are talking about, in what way is this fraud or concealing an identity?
Just because "Mark" is a name traditionally used for males? What about
the name Darci? I have seen it used for both men and women - are we then
concealing our identity? Must every person with a name used for either
gender state their gender upon demand to be kept from being accused of
fraud and concealment?
>If "Smith" wishes to engage in such anonymous activity, let him/her/it
>confine postings to privately owned BBS's - not Usenet.
And if Larry Lippman continues to falsely accuse people in a public forum
of fraud then I suggest that the appropriate system admin:
1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
about "Lippman".
2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Lippman's") which are used to accuse
people of fraud when they have no evidence to support such accusations.
Lippman has in the past posted some very obnoxious remarks and so the
above really doesn't really surprise me - I just think he should learn to
use the 'n', 'j', and/or 'u' keys instead of demanding that people who don't
conform to his idea of "proper" be denied access to a public forum.
Darci | (which is really spelled "Darcy" on my birth certificate and
Chapman| nowhere else - don't want to be accused of concealing anything ;-)
Tim Maroney
time, I feel obligated to support his continued presence. It is true that
his recent allegations were unfounded. It is also true that Mark has
undergone things in the past which would predispose him to think such
allegations might be correct. It is also true that Mark is one of the most
widely valued and controversial members of soc.women. There is absolutely
no reason to even consider deleting yet more of Mark's accounts.
--
Tim Maroney, {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
rswe...@dasys1.uucp
>any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to:
>1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
> about "Smith".
The BEC administration has in its possession information which we feel
is sufficient to identify Mark Smith as a 'real' person. It is our
policy to keep all personal information we possess concerning our
users strictly confidential.
--
Robert Sweeney {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!rsweeney
Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator
"You crossed my line of death!"
jb...@epimass.uucp
>SHOULD not) be conducted as a juvenile BBS.
MES is not an anonymous user. Mark Ethan Smith is, in fact, MES's
legal name. There is no anonymity and no deception in his postings,
and they are very serious, not whimsical. He has an unusual point
of view (I use "he", though MES is a woman, because that is his
preference -- if you want to get into a battle about the
appropriateness of pronouns please check out soc.women and not this
group) which he argues vigorously, just like many well-known posters.
He has never made the top 25 or even come close; most of the volume
has come from the MES-haters.
> I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer
>which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon
>any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to:
>
>1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
> about "Smith".
Only after Larry Lippman's administrator posts all personal
information in his or her possession about Larry Lippman. MES has
posted quite a lot of accurate information about his unusual life and
experiences. The very first message he ever posted to the net explained,
in detail, who he was and why he had his name legally changed, along
with a lot of personal history. Everything since then has been consistent
with that. I haven't seen Larry do the same.
Yes, MES's attack against Berkeley news administrators was
unjustified. But he has been booted from two systems in the past
and treated unfairly at others. A little paranoia is not surprising
given the history. And given that he is charged money for use of
violet.berkeley.edu and his only use of the system is for news and
mail, it seems reasonable for him to expect that they will be
maintained.
I do not agree with many things MES says, but I STRONGLY defend
his right to say it.
This group is not for discussion of personalities, and no action
is called for on the part of news administrators. Followups
to alt.flame.
--
- Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass...@uunet.uu.net
fa...@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu.uucp
Yes, MES's attack against Berkeley news administrators was
unjustified. But he has been booted from two systems in
the past and treated unfairly at others. A little paranoia
is not surprising given the history. And given that he is
charged money for use of violet.berkeley.edu and his only
use of the system is for news and mail, it seems reasonable
for him to expect that they will be maintained.
Mark may be paying for the use of violet, but that payment does
not mean any guarantee of netnews service; as both Mike Meyer and
I noted, netnews at the UCB Computer Center is an unsupported
software system, maintained by Mike when he has time out from his
other official duties.
If Mark wants guaranteed netnews service, he should petition Academic
Computing Services to make netnews an officially supported service.
As it stands, if netnews breaks or misbehaves on the Computer Center
systems, it will be fixed when someone can get around to it.
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fa...@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu
Dave Collier-Brown
>> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing)
>which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon
>any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to:
>
>1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
> about "Smith".
>
>2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms.
Gentlepersons.
This is not a matter which may usefully be discussed in the news
administration newsgroup. You may indulge in flame wars on the alt
subnet, in the flame group.
The operation of sites on USENET is the responsibility of their
owners, and unless actual harm is being done to other sites or persons
by mail, the operation is not a matter for the courts or for the net.
If you have probable cause to believe that harm is being done,
please make it a matter for the courts.
This message is being cross-posted to misc.legal.
--
David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb
Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its
350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind)
CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
la...@kitty.uucp
> >> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate...
>
> BTW, yes though we have not met in person.
>
> > No Usenet site should have anonymous users.
>
> Since Mark does sign his articles with his legal name how does this imply
> that he is an anonymous user?
How do you KNOW that is his/her legal name?
There have been serious questions raised in a number of articles
by a number of people as to whether this person is real. I am certainly
not the only person to raise such questions - only the most recent. I
posted my article to news.admin following an article by an administrator
at berkeley who stated that "Smith" had not responded with evidence to
support some outrageous accusations about persons at berkeley interfering
with news.
There is not one shred of evidence posted to identify "Smith";
even you admit that you have never met her/him. "Smith" posts no address
or telephone number, and does not appear to be an employee of or student
at any organization on the Net. I can pick up the telephone and eventually
find you through Tektronix. You can certainly find me at the organization
and telephone number always appended to my articles. But we can't do
this for "Smith". So, what EVIDENCE exists that this person is "real"
as claimed?
> And if Larry Lippman continues to falsely accuse people in a public forum
> of fraud then I suggest that the appropriate system admin:
> 1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
> about "Lippman".
> 2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Lippman's") which are used to accuse
> people of fraud when they have no evidence to support such accusations.
*I* am the system administrator at my site, and thank you very
much, but I'll leave my account intact.
*I* take responsibility for everything I post. I consider Usenet
to be an electronic publication, and as such feel that anyone who posts
articles has to bear legal responsibility for same (the site also shares
responsibility). I don't say anything that I am not prepared to defend -
legally, or otherwise.
If you or anyone else wants to sue me for libel, by all means
do so. You can find me at my organization almost every day, and the
street address is available from the uucp maps or directory assistance in
order to serve a summons and complaint.
But "Smith" is quite insulated from such recourse. How does one
find "Smith" through a public access UNIX system or as a non-student paid
account at berkeley?
I object to this lack of recourse. I find it interesting that
in spite of serious questions raised about "Smith", in a recent article,
15...@dasys1.UUCP, rswe...@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) takes a protective
attitude by stating "It is our policy to keep all personal information
we possess concerning our users strictly confidential." This strikes
me as a rather formidable and defensive position, considering that dasys1
is a "public access" UNIX system run as a hobby by 20 year-old Charles F.
Foreman from his parent's apartment in Manhattan. [I have proof of these
details, in case anyone is wondering].
I state the above, because it makes ME wonder if "Smith" is merely
an assumed name used by young Mr. Foreman.
I have a particular "beef" with "Smith" - who, because I disagreed
that "pornography causes violence" - stated in article 1412@dasys1:
"If you're the same Larry Lippman I've heard of, you've produced porn for
your friends and to sell products, and are not in the least bit reasonably
objective on the subject." "Smith" has no knowledge of me, no knowledge
of my friends, and no knowledge of my work (I am a consulting engineer
and research scientist - I don't sell products!). The use of the word
"if" in "Smith's" allegation does not function as a disclaimer of
liability for false accusation.
So my point is: how do I find "Smith" if I want recourse for
his/her libelous statement?
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is it responsible administration for
the sites permitting "Smith" accounts to protect and insulate this person
from responsibilty for his/her statements?
> Lippman has in the past posted some very obnoxious remarks and so the
> above really doesn't really surprise me - I just think he should learn to
> use the 'n', 'j', and/or 'u' keys instead of demanding that people who don't
> conform to his idea of "proper" be denied access to a public forum.
Funny, isn't it, that *I* am trying to clean up the same type of
nonsense to which *YOU*, Ms. Champman have objected, to wit:
[---start of article excerpt---]
From: dar...@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Outgrowth of attacks by Mark Ethan Smith
Summary: Really, Good-bye
Keywords: Please read this...
Message-ID: <19...@midas.TEK.COM>
Date: 30 Sep 87 19:56:03 GMT
References: <15...@killer.UUCP> <24...@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <42...@udenva.UUCP> <73...@sri-unix.ARPA> <16...@chinet.UUCP> <76...@sri-unix.ARPA>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
In article <76...@sri-unix.ARPA> mas...@sri-unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes:
>Here's how I take it. This group has degenerated into stupid
>quarrels over who is masquerading as whom of which sex and why,
>and I don't have time for it. So Molly is masquerading and Rhonda
>isn't and let's define what IS woman-bashing and what isn't....
...
I've tried to listen to many sides of an argument, only to get frustrated when
people insist upon clouding the issues, side-stepping arguments, and being so
closed-minded as to make the whole thing useless. The last straw has been
multiple cases of men posting with "female" names and one going so far as to
claiming certain feelings "as a woman."
[---end of article excerpt---]
So, we are on the "same side" in this issue - although you don't
seem inclined to admit that.
dar...@midas.uucp
obliged to post the following:
In article <20...@kitty.UUCP> la...@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
>In article <19...@midas.TEK.COM>, dar...@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) writes:
>> > No Usenet site should have anonymous users.
>> Since Mark does sign his articles with his legal name how does this imply
>> that he is an anonymous user?
> How do you KNOW that is his/her legal name?
How do you KNOW that it isn't? And since you don't KNOW that
it isn't, how do come off accusing Mark of fraud and concealment?
You have never answered how Mark Ethan Smith's actions constitute
*fraud*.
> *I* am the system administrator at my site, and thank you very
>much, but I'll leave my account intact.
Well, how convienant - really, now, I didn't expect the sysadmin (even if
it wasn't you) to take my suggestion any more seriously than I expected
the other sysadmins to take *yours* seriously.
> *I* take responsibility for everything I post. I consider Usenet
>to be an electronic publication, and as such feel that anyone who posts
>articles has to bear legal responsibility for same (the site also shares
>responsibility).
I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility
whatsoever for any articles posted by its users.
>I don't say anything that I am not prepared to defend - legally, or otherwise.
Well, according to Mark Ethan Smith himself:
[begin of article excerpt]
Newsgroups: soc.women,misc.legal,news.misc
Message-ID: <15...@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 2 Oct 87 04:58:10 GMT
References: <19...@midas.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: msm...@dasys1.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith)
Organization: The Big Electric Cat
The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice
posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by
users of the system.
I am fully and totally responsible for all my postings, and in
particular I am specifically fully responsible for my postings
regarding Larry Lippman. BEC (dasys1) is in no way responsible for
anything I post.
[...]
Larry Lippman's phone call to the
operator of this site was apparently meant to intimidate. He
apparently wanted to hold the site responsible for my postings, which he
apparently claimed were slanderous. If he believes that anything I
said was slanderous, which it definitely was not, he can contact me
directly. I am responsible for my postings, not the site. Larry
phoned, rather than writing to, the SA, apparently to maintain
plausible deniability regaring his intimidation. Such intimidation
is reprehensible. For public access and free speech to exist, Larry,
you have to accept that the individual, not the public access site,
is responsible for postings. If you have a problem with me, contact me.
And post publicly, where people can see what you are saying and doing.
[end of article excerpt]
And finally:
> Funny, isn't it, that *I* am trying to clean up the same type of
>nonsense to which *YOU*, Ms. Champman have objected, to wit:
[I say about leaving soc.women: ]
>The last straw has been
>multiple cases of men posting with "female" names and one going so far as to
>claiming certain feelings "as a woman."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>[---end of article excerpt---]
> So, we are on the "same side" in this issue - although you don't
>seem inclined to admit that.
WRONG, Mr. Limpman, we are not on the same side at all.
1. Mark Ethan Smith has never claimed to be a man. (If you make that
assumption based on the poster's name alone, that is your mistake).
Neither has he posted something that related to his feelings "as a man".
There was, however, a man who *claimed to be a woman* and expressed
certain views because he "was a woman." That is was I was objecting
to. I hope that you (and others) can see the difference.
Please also notice that I did not ever and do not now advocate
the pulling of that person's account and/or USENET access.
I did however, decide that I needed a break from all of that and
have since unsubscribed to soc.women (hint, hint, Mr. Lippman).
2. According to Mark Ethan Smith, that is his legal name and as
I have never seen proof otherwise, I will have to stand by that.
(What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?)
However, I had strong suspicions as to the real gender of the
person I mentioned above and proceeded to take the issue to
e-mail where I believe such queries belong.
I have also been told that if you have a question about Mark's
gender (like "how can you say a woman feels this if you're a man?")
he will most likely share that information with you via *e-mail*.
Darci Chapman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>> Intelligent responses welcome, flames to /dev/null <<<<<<<<<
{major backbone}!tektronix!midas!darcic
dar...@midas.UUCP darcic%midas....@relay.cs.net
dar...@midas.TEK.COM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ka...@ddsw1.uucp
> No Usenet site should have anonymous users. Usenet is not (or
>SHOULD not) be conducted as a juvenile BBS.
Agreed (so far). All our users must identify themselves by real name in
their .signature files, and the 'gecos' field of their passwd entry contains
a real, valid name. No exceptions.
> I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer
>which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon
>any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to:
>
>1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
> about "Smith".
>
>2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms.
I've got to laugh. MES has an account, he is a real person, and we have in
our posession sufficient information to verify this as a *fact*. In fact,
Mark and I have spoken on the telephone on occasion, and *I* placed the call
to the number supplied.
Post to the net? Sorry, our policy is that registration information is
confidential, and will only be disclosed upon presentation of legal force
(ie: a subpoena). Somehow I doubt you can muster that.
Revoke any accounts?? Not unless a clear violation of our policy occurs,
and I don't see it here (and yes, I have been following this entire thing).
"Not a disclaimer":
As administrator of this system, and President of our company, I am
responsible for what goes into, out of, and is processed by our computer
equipment.
--
Karl Denninger UUCP : ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl
Macro Computer Solutions Dial : +1 (312) 566-8909 (300-1200)
"Quality solutions at a fair price" Voice: +1 (312) 566-8910 (24 hrs)
gsm...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>Since someone has recommended throwing off Mark Ethan Smith for the nth
>time, I feel obligated to support his continued presence.
I concur. Considering the stuff Mr. Maroney, for instance, has
pulled without prejudice to his ability to post, it would
scarcely be fair to yank Mark E. Smith's account for the "crime"
of annoying people.
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnet Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
Imagine what the world would be like if football was a worthy ritual performed
in stadiums but mathematics was a misunderstood activity ignored by almost all.
Len Rose
>> >> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate...
>>
>> BTW, yes though we have not met in person.
>>
>> > No Usenet site should have anonymous users.
>>
>> Since Mark does sign his articles with his legal name how does this imply
>> that he is an anonymous user?
>
> How do you KNOW that is his/her legal name?
> There have been serious questions raised in a number of articles
>by a number of people as to whether this person is real.
>or telephone number, and does not appear to be an employee of or student
>at any organization on the Net.
I didn't know this was a pre-requisite,to be an employee or a student,or
to reveal personal information to anyone on the net.
>I can pick up the telephone and eventually
>find you through Tektronix. You can certainly find me at the organization
>and telephone number always appended to my articles. But we can't do
>this for "Smith". So, what EVIDENCE exists that this person is "real"
>as claimed?
>*I* am the system administrator at my site, and thank you very
>much, but I'll leave my account intact.
>*I* take responsibility for everything I post. I consider Usenet
>to be an electronic publication, and as such feel that anyone who posts
>articles has to bear legal responsibility for same (the site also shares
>responsibility). I don't say anything that I am not prepared to defend
>legally, or otherwise.
Can't fault you for that,it seems to be the right way to look at things.
>But "Smith" is quite insulated from such recourse. How does one
>find "Smith" through a public access UNIX system or as a non-student
>paid account at berkeley?
>15...@dasys1.UUCP, rswe...@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) takes a protective
>attitude by stating "It is our policy to keep all personal information
>we possess concerning our users strictly confidential." This strikes
>me as a rather formidable and defensive position, considering that dasys1
>is a "public access" UNIX system run as a hobby by 20 year-old Charles F.
>Foreman from his parent's apartment in Manhattan. [I have proof of these
>details, in case anyone is wondering].
You attack the person for doing the only sensible thing possible.
You just can't give people's names,addresses,etc out without incurring
some sort of legal liability yourself (even if you are an admin)...
> I state the above, because it makes ME wonder if "Smith" is merely
> an assumed name used by young Mr. Foreman.
Right..Mr. Foreman is going to call across the country,pay for access to a
machine at berkeley,just to make your life miserable.
(I think someone that runs a "dreaded" public access UNIX site has much
more pressing things to do with their money than pay for accounts all over
the country).
I think you have a real attitude problem concerning Public Access Systems
and their role on the net.
It is also apparrent that you have some sort of problem with people younger
than yourself.
I wonder what "young Mr. Foreman" ever did to you?
> I have a particular "beef" with "Smith" - who, because I disagreed
>that "pornography causes violence" - stated in article 1412@dasys1:
If you have some sort of personal problem with MES,then consult a lawyer,
and stop dragging this crap through the net.It seems that MES delights in
baiting certain people,and you have obviously given her the response she
was looking for.
> So my point is: how do I find "Smith" if I want recourse for
>his/her libelous statement?
> UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is it responsible administration for
>the sites permitting "Smith" accounts to protect and insulate this person
>from responsibilty for his/her statements?
>
Like the conscientious person I am,all follow-ups have been redirected to
alt.flame,and Mr. Lippman,if you don't get alt.* feeds then I will be
happy to send you one.
Len Rose -* Netsys Public Access Network *- The East Coast Machine.
301-540-3656,3657,3658,3659 3B2/Unix SV3.0
Mark E. Smith
>As it stands, if netnews breaks or misbehaves on the Computer Center
>systems, it will be fixed when someone can get around to it.
And if I should decide that anybody is due an apology, I'll do that
when I get around to it, and not before.
--Mark
--
Mark Ethan Smith {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!msmith
New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/
Len Rose
>> >> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate...
>>
>> BTW, yes though we have not met in person.
>>
>> > No Usenet site should have anonymous users.
>>
>> Since Mark does sign his articles with his legal name how does this imply
>> that he is an anonymous user?
>
> How do you KNOW that is his/her legal name?
> There have been serious questions raised in a number of articles
>by a number of people as to whether this person is real.
>or telephone number, and does not appear to be an employee of or student
>at any organization on the Net.
I didn't know this was a pre-requisite,to be an employee or a student,or
to reveal personal information to anyone on the net.
>I can pick up the telephone and eventually
>find you through Tektronix. You can certainly find me at the organization
>and telephone number always appended to my articles. But we can't do
>this for "Smith". So, what EVIDENCE exists that this person is "real"
>as claimed?
>*I* am the system administrator at my site, and thank you very
>much, but I'll leave my account intact.
>*I* take responsibility for everything I post. I consider Usenet
>to be an electronic publication, and as such feel that anyone who posts
>articles has to bear legal responsibility for same (the site also shares
>responsibility). I don't say anything that I am not prepared to defend
>legally, or otherwise.
Can't fault you for that,it seems to be the right way to look at things.
>But "Smith" is quite insulated from such recourse. How does one
>find "Smith" through a public access UNIX system or as a non-student
>paid account at berkeley?
>15...@dasys1.UUCP, rswe...@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) takes a protective
>attitude by stating "It is our policy to keep all personal information
>we possess concerning our users strictly confidential." This strikes
>me as a rather formidable and defensive position, considering that dasys1
>is a "public access" UNIX system run as a hobby by 20 year-old Charles F.
>Foreman from his parent's apartment in Manhattan. [I have proof of these
>details, in case anyone is wondering].
You attack the person for doing the only sensible thing possible.
You just can't give people's names,addresses,etc out without incurring
some sort of legal liability yourself (even if you are an admin)...
> I state the above, because it makes ME wonder if "Smith" is merely
> an assumed name used by young Mr. Foreman.
Right..Mr. Foreman is going to call across the country,pay for access to a
machine at berkeley,just to make your life miserable.
(I think someone that runs a "dreaded" public access UNIX site has much
more pressing things to do with their money than pay for accounts all over
the country).
I think you have a real attitude problem concerning Public Access Systems
and their role on the net.
It is also apparrent that you have some sort of problem with people younger
than yourself.
I wonder what "young Mr. Foreman" ever did to you?
> I have a particular "beef" with "Smith" - who, because I disagreed
>that "pornography causes violence" - stated in article 1412@dasys1:
If you have some sort of personal problem with MES,then consult a lawyer,
and stop dragging this crap through the net.It seems that MES delights in
baiting certain people,and you have obviously given her the response she
was looking for.
> So my point is: how do I find "Smith" if I want recourse for
>his/her libelous statement?
> UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is it responsible administration for
>the sites permitting "Smith" accounts to protect and insulate this person
>from responsibilty for his/her statements?
>
Like the conscientious person I am,all follow-ups have been redirected to
la...@kitty.uucp
> >Since someone has recommended throwing off Mark Ethan Smith for the nth
> >time, I feel obligated to support his continued presence.
>
> I concur. Considering the stuff Mr. Maroney, for instance, has
> pulled without prejudice to his ability to post, it would
> scarcely be fair to yank Mark E. Smith's account for the "crime"
> of annoying people.
In my particular issue concerning "Smith", I am not referring to
"annoyance". I am not referring to expressing opinion. I am not referring
to issues of "freedom of speech". I am referring to the commission of
libel. You do agree, do you not, that there are "bounds" to freedom of
speech?
Anyone has the right to express opinion. Usenet is no different
from a newspaper: anyone can pretty much say anything whose "truth" is
doubtful as long as it is qualified as an OPINION, and NOT AS A FACT.
Examples of acceptable statements under most circumstances are:
1. I believe X has committed criminal acts.
2. X has probably committed criminal acts.
3. In my opinion, X has committed criminal acts.
4. X seems like a person who has committed criminal acts.
5. X is alleged to have committed criminal acts.
Now, there has to be SOME basis for expressing the opinion in order
to be truly free from committing libel, but there is quite a bit of leeway
provided such qualifying lanaguage is used.
What one canNOT state without incurring liability (unless it is true)
is:
6. X has committed criminal acts.
Stating (6) above in writing constitutes libel, provided that: (1)
the statement is in fact false and (2) the person making the statement knew
it to be false. Proving that the person making the false statement did so
with "intent" to commit harm may or may not be an issue, depending upon
circumstances.
All it takes to "weasel" out of a libelous situation is to use a
"qualified" form of making the statement, such as (1) to (5) above, and
to establish SOME "information and belief" for making the statement.
In at least two incidents "Smith" did not use such a "qualifier",
and in at least one incident "Smith" committed the tort of libel. Notice
that I represented AS A FACT that libel was committed by "Smith". So you
can be reasonably sure that I am certain of my ground.
So the point is: I am concerned with "Smith" using the electronic
publication of Usenet as a means to commit the act of libel; NOT any
possible acts of annoyance. Libel == injury != annoyance.
And this is why I call upon system administrators to evaluate
whether they should allow a person such as "Smith" to have Usenet access.
And quite frankly, I suggest that anyone who does NOT have
responsibility for site administration stay out of this discussion.
Based upon my experience, maximum freedom is usually advocated by those
with minimum responsibility - so I already KNOW what the opinion of most
non-administrators will be.
Brandon Allbery
+---------------
| I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer
| which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon
| any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to:
|
| 1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
| about "Smith".
Son, if you think the sysadmins at ncoast are going to willingly violate
someone's privacy just to make _you_ happy -- and that we have the time to
keep a posting of such users updated for you -- then you've got a surprise
coming.
_IF_ you have a legitimate gripe about some user on ncoast, send mail to
ncoast!root and we'll do something about it. Otherwise, I see no reason
to inform the world who ncoast!trucker or etc. are; if the user with that
account wishes to inform the world of tho s/he is, fine, but it's none of
_my_ business, nor is it the business of Rich, Phil, or Bob, the other
sysadmins on ncoast. Clear?
--
Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc
{{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!mandrill!hal}!ncoast!allbery
ARPA: necntc!ncoast!all...@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY
<<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>>
"...he calls _that_ a `little adventure'?!" - Cmdr. Ryker
Larry Lippman
First, just to clear up a minor point:
> You have never answered how Mark Ethan Smith's actions constitute
> *fraud*.
*I* never made that accusation about "Smith" in particular. You
have taken my remarks out of context and have deleted the prior references.
In any event, that accusation and others were made in articles before mine,
as below:
References: <378d60...@apollo.uucp$$> <52...@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
$$> In article <52...@jade.BERKELEY.EDU$$>, ge...@opal.berkeley.edu (Genji Schmeder) writes:
$$> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing)
$$> >hoax?
$$>
$$> Mark Ethan Smith has not yet replied to my demand last week for either
$$> the names of the "woman hating" programmers working at UCB computer
$$> center or a retraction of his/her accusation. (Smith's account,
$$> era1987@violet, has been logged in several times since my message
$$> appeared in news.) Smith also claimed that woman haters here have
$$> maliciously tampered with news software, another serious charge.
Now to the important issue...
> I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility
> whatsoever for any articles posted by its users.
> ...
> The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice
> posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by
> users of the system.
I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites
have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the
above on a public access unix system are worthless.
Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a
publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to:
(1) "news"; (2) "articles"; (3) "authors"; (4) "media" [magnetic media is
sufficient]; (5) "distribution"; (6) "subscription"; and (7) "solicitation
for paid subscription". The last element (7) is particularly aimed at
"public access UNIX" sites which generally charge subscribers for access to
Usenet; also in this instance, many public access UNIX systems solicit
subscribers with Usenet access being the primary "attraction".
An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect
publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes)
the article. To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron,
"Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3)
publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the
author. Most libel suits name only the publisher as a defendant, and not
the author; the issue of the author is secondary, and in some cases is
immaterial.
Consider as an example, a famous case of libel that ultimately
caused the collapse of the Saturday Evening Post. Wallace Butts, the
athletic director of the University of Georgia, brought a multimillion
dollar libel suit against Curtis Publishing Co. (publisher of the Saturday
Evening Post) for publishing a false story which claimed that Butts had
conspired to rig a college football game. This case went all the way to
the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was affirmed in favor of Butts. There
was no issue raised concerning liability of the author - only liability
of the publisher.
Concerning the issue of disclaimers as alleged to be used by site
dasys1: Most disclaimers sound good, many people believe them, but in
reality they are usually meaningless. In fact, most (if not all) states
have laws pertaining to "prohibited contracts"; i.e., there are laws which
specifically state that certain types of disclaimers of liability can NEVER
be valid.
As an example, in New York State the invalidation of certain types
of disclaimers of liability is contained in the "General Obligations Law",
Article 5 Title 3. There are over a dozen detailed statutes contained
within the above law invalidating various types of disclaimers; some examples
of the titles of these statutes are:
5-321 "Agreements exempting lessors from liability for negligence void
and unenforcable."
5-322.1 "Agreements exempting owners and contractors from liability for
negligence void and unenforcable."
5-325 "Garages and parking places; agreements exempting from liability for
negligence void."
5-326 "Agreements exempting pools, gymnasiums, places of public amusement
or recreation and similar establishments from liability for negligence
void and unenforcable."
How many times have you seen parking garages with signs proclaiming
such language as "Not responsible for damage or loss of vehicles or personal
property contained therein.", or with such language printed on the parking
ticket? Well - surprise! - such disclaimers are invalid; the parking garage
IS responsible.
Now, I have gone into considerable detail here and in recent
previous articles because I am trying to convey an important message to
system administrators:
1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles
(and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users
post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if
users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/? Well,
I am trying to point out something that could be just as serious,
but may not be quite as obvious.
2. Exercise some discretion in whom you allow to have Usenet access.
Employees and students have some implied reasons to act in a
responsible manner; i.e., their employment or academic standing
is "on the line". Guest accounts and "people off the street"
usually have no such implied reasons to act in responsible manner;
i.e., if they act in an irresponsible manner and get kicked off
the system, they take the attitude "So what? I'll go elsewhere".
That's not such an easy attitude for an employee or student to
take, however.
As an example of the above, I have NEVER seen an article containing
defamatory language from an AT&T site. AT&T sites constitute a
significant portion of the Net. Think about this.
In a recent article on this newsgroup (to which I did not feel like
directly replying), some questions were raised as to whether the spectre
of government regulation or censorship is being raised. This is absolutely
NOT the case. I am not talking creating any new type of regulation. Any
laws which might apply to abuse of mail or Usenet article posting already
exist. I am neither advocating censorship of electronic mail nor advocating
censorship of Usenet articles.
You are all familiar with the concept of a "trusted host" as applied
to networks. I am trying to convey the concept of a "trusted user" as applied
to mail and Usenet articles. Can you trust your users to act in a responsible
manner and keep your organization free from liability? Do your users have
any incentive to act in a responsible manner? Or are they people "off the
street" who pay their $ 5.00 or $ 10.00 or so per month, and could care less
about the consequences of their actions to your organization?
I have done the best I can to make my point. If administrators want
to heed my advice, fine; if not, that's fine, too. I am just trying to be
helpful by conveying some information which is particularly contemporaneous
with, uh, "other events". I have said "my piece" as clearly as I can, and
I will now attempt to get out of the discussion loop.
If someone has serious questions or wants references as to the legal
issues, I will be glad to provide them.
If someone tries to "bait" me into further antagonistic discussion,
I will do the best I can to resist temptation and keep quiet; however, I
promise nothing, since I am a tough old SOB who doesn't take shit from
anyone, and who doesn't back down from a fight.
James Wilbur Lewis
-> whatsoever for any articles posted by its users.
-> ...
-> The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice
-> posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by
-> users of the system.
-
- I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites
-have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the
-above on a public access unix system are worthless.
This is presented as fact, but how qualified are you to make such a judgement?
Are you an attorney?
- Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a
-publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to:
-(1) "news"; (2) "articles";
This is a convenient metaphor, but only that: a metaphor. Usenet should
not be confused with broadcast media.
-(6) "subscription"
Another metaphor; there is no central entity providing news only to
those who "subscribe" to it. In the context of netnews, "subscription"
is just a convenient way of describing a topic selection algorithm, and
does not carry the connotations usually associated with the word.
-; and (7) "solicitation for paid subscription". The last element (7) is
-particularly aimed at "public access UNIX" sites which generally charge
-subscribers for access to Usenet; also in this instance, many public access
-UNIX systems solicit subscribers with Usenet access being the primary
-"attraction".
I believe the charges are usually for access to the system per se (which
often includes Usenet access), not the Usenet access itself. For instance,
Mark Ethan Smith has an account on violet.berkeley.edu, which costs money,
but Usenet is an unsupported service on that machine. Users who pay
for access aren't guaranteed that netnews will be available. I suspect
the same goes for most sites on the network.
- An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect
-publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes)
-the article.
This is a peculiar interpretation; "sites" are only machines and are
incapable of taking any conscious action. The site administrators don't
have to take any specific action to cause distribution of the article;
once the software is initially set up, the only person who needs to
act to cause distribution of an article is the author, by submitting it
to the news posting program. If *anyone* can be considered the "publisher"
of a netnews article, it certainly must be the author!
-To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron,
-"Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3)
-publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the
-author.
This is simply a bald assertion on your part, given without any kind
of supporting arguments. While net postings *may* be actionable, the
only person who can reasonably be held responsible is the author of
the article, who *I* argue is also the publisher.
Holding the site (or more properly, the site administrator) responsible
for a usenet posting is like holding the postmaster liable for something
sent through the mail. Neither individual has the responsibility, or
even the ability (in the case of a heavily used site) to screen the
content of every message to ensure its acceptability. (In other
words, I am arguing that the network sites should be treated as common
carriers, just like the post office and the phone company.)
- Concerning the issue of disclaimers as alleged to be used by site
-dasys1: Most disclaimers sound good, many people believe them, but in
-reality they are usually meaningless.
That doesn't prove a thing about any particular disclaimer not covered
by the examples you give, such as the one used by dasys1.
-1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles
- (and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users
- post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if
- users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/?
That would be a problem, but it would hardly be libel. This situation is
presumably a violation of a licensing agreement, which would impose a
responsibility on the site administration to ensure that unauthorized parties
are not given access to source code. The situation simply doesn't extrapolate
to libel, so this example is irrelevant.
-2. Exercise some discretion in whom you allow to have Usenet access.
- Employees and students have some implied reasons to act in a
- responsible manner; i.e., their employment or academic standing
- is "on the line".
-[...]
- As an example of the above, I have NEVER seen an article containing
- defamatory language from an AT&T site. AT&T sites constitute a
- significant portion of the Net. Think about this.
Well, I've seen plenty of ads for dining room furniture in NJ posted to
the net with world distribution! Yes, from AT&T sites. And I've seen
plenty of obnoxious postings from places like DEC and Gould. So maybe
AT&T insists that its employees post reasonably, but this cannot in any
way be construed as an acknowledgement of responsibility. It's far more
likely to be a matter of public relations...they don't want representatives
of their company making idiots of themselves on the net.
- I have done the best I can to make my point. If administrators want
-to heed my advice, fine; if not, that's fine, too. I am just trying to be
-helpful by conveying some information which is particularly contemporaneous
-with, uh, "other events".
Well, thanks for trying, but to me it sounds more like you're trying
to justify your desire to hassle the site administrator of someone who
posted an article you didn't like, and make it harder for controversial
people like Mark Smith to obtain public access accounts on other systems.
I think what we need here is a good dose of *informed* opinion. Any of
the lawyers out there (mcb?) willing to comment?
-- Jim Lewis
U.C. Berkeley
L.MARCO
>
> [ " An admin/site is legally responsible for postings originating there " ]
>
> "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3)
> publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the
> author. Most libel suits name only the publisher as a defendant
> 1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles
> (and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users
> post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if
> users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/? Well,
Hmmm.... My reaction to this is "And just what state have *you*
passed the Bar in, Larry ? " 1/2 :-) What's the legal definition of
"publish", anyway ? I think that posting propietary source is different;
it's not supoosed to be left 0666, so there's a difference between that &&
someone's ideas, twisted as they may be...
I suppose you might be able to make a case for AT&T being negligent
in letting mentally unstable individuals on the net, but you'd still have to
prove that the posting originated here.... Then you'd have to prove that poster
actually posted it... Then you'd have to prove that we could have prevented it
from happening... Then you'd have to prove that what was said was a lie...
Haven't we been through this before ?
Lou Marco
byr...@ge-dab.uucp
either ignore a posting or to write a reply by e-mail to the sender.
Mr. Lipman if you can't handle the traffic on usenet I advise you to
give up your account and go back to reading books or whatever else
you might want to do with your time.
But to call someones sys-admin just because you don't agree with what
they said, shows a major lack of maturity.
Grow up or give up, but don't bother the thousands of other people who
don't care for the drivel you post about how your feelings were hurt!!
Chuq Von Rospach
[I'm going to regret this... ]
>> "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3)
>> publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the
>> author. Most libel suits name only the publisher as a defendant
Problem one: identification.
Prove that a given person posted a given posting. Think that is
simple? I can name a number of ways to tracelessly forge postings.
I do not believe it is possible to prove to the requirements of a
court of law that ANYTHING happened on USENET, much less than any
specific person did any given event.
Problem two: publishing.
Unless Larry knows of a precedent I don't know of, nobody has
shown in a court of law that an electronic BBS or anything even
remotely like USENET does any kind of publishing. It is just as
likely that they would be considered a common carrier, in which the
person doing the posting is liable, but not the folks carrying the
material.
Problem 3: precedent.
Unless Larry is a lawyer specializing in communication and computer
law and knows of some precedent setting cases that I haven't heard
of, he's talking through his hat. According to a talk given by Susan
Nycum (generally regarded as the top expert in computer law in the
country) a couple of years ago at Usenix, nobody has any idea what
to expect if something like this got to court. There is no holding
precedent to base this stuff on. Larry is making generalizations
that don't have any basis in fact.
>> 1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles
May be. It isn't proven (I wouldn't expect it to not be the case, though --
better conservative than sorry. Do YOU want to be the precedent setter?)
>> (and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users
>> post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if
>> users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/? Well,
Source code is a whole different issue, and is covered by Trade Secret
agreements in your Source License that you signed your life away on. It has
no bearing to 'normal' usenet postings.
> What's the legal definition of
>"publish", anyway ?
Good question.
Since usenet does not have any 'publish date' per se, and since usenet does
not have an 'issue', and it is not copyrighted (except in specific articles)
and it has no editor, editorial influence, publisher, publishing
house/address or any organization at all, a good argument can be made that
Usenet is not published.
A (in my opinion, for what that's worth) better definition of usenet is a
cooperative common carrier. Sort of like the community billboards in the
student union. you certainly wouldn't hold Stanford liable for something J.
Random Schizoid puts on their public corkboards, would you?
Then again, maybe you would. I doubt a court would...
> I suppose you might be able to make a case for AT&T being negligent
>in letting mentally unstable individuals on the net, but you'd still have to
>prove that the posting originated here....
This can't be done. I don't want to put proof out on the net, since it might
come back to haunt us, but there are a number of ways to get around usenet
security.
>Then you'd have to prove that poster
>actually posted it...
See above.
>Then you'd have to prove that we could have prevented it
>from happening...
Based on the design of the usenet software, this is impossible, of course,
unless you can prove that the site should have known that the user was
likely to do this kind of nasty libelous posting and refused them access to
the net completely. That would be VERY hard to prove, by the way.
>Then you'd have to prove that what was said was a lie...
Probably the hardest part... Libel isn't nearly as easy as you think it is
to prove. Thank Ghod.
I don't know what would be worse; being the layer prosecuting a case like
this, being the lawyer defending a case like this, or being the judge. we're
talking major legalistic nightmare. Let's hope it never happens.
[find side comment. I'm a layman, so while I've studied this stuff for years
because of my tenure and interest in USENET, I can't be considered an
expert. Except at ways of getting around USENET security. And I won't tell
about that. Your mileage may vary. Consult tax attorney before investing]
chuq
--
Chuq Von Rospach ch...@sun.COM
Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ
Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die.
Chuq Von Rospach ch...@sun.COM
Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ
Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die.
Phil Smith
> As quoted from <20...@kitty.UUCP> by la...@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman):
> +---------------
> | I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer
> | which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon
> | any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to:
> |
> | 1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
> | about "Smith".
> +---------------
>
>remarks by allbery have been deleted (if you want to know what he said
>look for his article.)
It sounds like anyone with the name of smith is being accused
of being a phony,non-real-person,liar. I take offense at this.
I have seen good and bad smiths on the net (i won't point them out).
If you wanted to refer to fakers, why didn't say 'John Doe', which
is the traditional way to identify unindentifiable persons?
So far as John Does, we at ncoast are only concerned that the person
is someone WE know an identity of. It isn't the business of anyone
else on the net to have that information. If a John Doe causes problems
on the net, a note to ncoast!root will ensure the problem is resolved.
--
decvax!mandrill!ncoast!smith
ncoast!sm...@cwru.csnet
(ncoast!smith%cwru....@csnet-relay.ARPA)
br...@looking.uucp
>
>[I'm going to regret this... ]
>
> Prove that a given person posted a given posting. Think that is
> simple? I can name a number of ways to tracelessly forge postings.
> I do not believe it is possible to prove to the requirements of a
> court of law that ANYTHING happened on USENET, much less than any
> specific person did any given event.
It's true you can't PROVE a posting came from somebody, and that means that
you could probably never get criminal prosecution over something posted to
usenet.
Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof. Can
I demonstrate with certainty that <30...@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach?
No. But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from
him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!",
then it is extremely likely that he posted it.
If there were a forgery, you would have to show the court why you didn't point
it out until you were served with the suit. The court might believe you and
they might not, but it's up to them. The principle of reasonable doubt does
not apply in civil litigation.
--
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
Steven E. Rice, P.E.
line) about whether it is or is not possible to sue the originating site
for libelous postings. In article <21...@lll-tis.arpa>, Michael C. Berch
(m...@lll-tis.arpa) pointed out that the law in this area is not settled.
(Mr. Berch is an attorney.) The general tone of Mr. Berch's posting seemed
to imply that Mr. Lippman's outrage had no legal outlet.
In my humble (i.e., not $200 per hour) opinion, Mr. Berch, Chuq Von
Rospach (ch...@sun.COM, in his recent article <30...@sun.uucp>), and others
are overlooking something serious. Remember that the law in this area
*is* unsettled, so new theories (as long as not completely off-the-wall --
and maybe even then!) would of necessity be given a hearing in court.
While the author of an allegedly libelous article might be anonymous,
or difficult to find, the sites are neither anonymous nor (in general)
difficult to find! Often they are located at the headquarters of
companies (large or small), or in University computer rooms. And the
control of and responsibility for those computing facilities is quite
easy to determine.
If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he
might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending
article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the
newsgroups that contained the article in question. This could be done on
the theory that each site that made the article available to be read was
in fact a "publisher" of the article, and therefore had committed the
crime of libel. Given an ambitious lawyer prepared to pose a number of
undecided issues to the court, such a suit could drag on for years. . .
What do you think would happen to USENET if such a suit were filed,
naming the owners and administrators of all the sites in the USENET map
as defendants? Suppose just the backbone sites and a scattering of other
sites received a subpoena demanding a copy of their news history file.
(The contents of the history file would provide an indication of whether
or not the site in question had received the article.)
How many companies, universities, and whatever feel the USENET is
important enough to justify the expense involved in defending themselves
against such a suit, let alone being willing to risk continued exposure
to a liability of unknown magnitude? (The courts are erratic enough
these days that it is impossible to predict the outcome!) If such a suit
were filed, how many sites would dump USENET as a precaution, even though
they weren't named as a defendant?
Fine legal theories explaining why USENET sites have no liability for
articles posted are just theories until tested in court. While USENET
might prevail after a lengthy legal battle, such a contest would likely
cause the disintegration of the network. It is sad to win a battle and
in the winning, lose the war!
Perhaps it is asking too much, but if we all behave ourselves in a
civilized manner, it will not become necessary to find out what the
courts might decide. . .
Steve Rice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
new: ste...@videovax.tv.Tek.com
old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever
Dennis L. Mumaugh
much). People are talking about libel and slander and law suits
and ....
Please remember one major thing. Libel and slander MUST involve
damage to one's reputation and must be monetary in nature.
Law cases have shown that a "libel" isn't such if NO ONE
seriously would believe that the statement is to be taken
seriously. Not that the court will accept the "I was only
joking" defense very often but I seriously doubt that screaming
"!!!!!!" during a shouting match would get too much attention.
Also even if it is taken seriously, damage must be shown. Pain
and suffering, loss of business, damage to one's professional
reputation (to the degree it affects employability), etc and so
forth. To some degree this must include the degree of
publication and the nature of readers.
AFTER you explain to the judge and jury about the esoterics of
computer bulletin boards, mailing lists and stuff, then explain
what a flaming match is. After explaining some of the USENET
classics which did cause damage (were there any?) explain why
this particular situation is worthy of the court's attention.
Also, which court? By law the suit can be brought in the courts
of either the plaintiff's or defendant's legal residence or in
ANY place the libel appeared (Australia, Europe, Canada
perhaps?). By the way don't forget to have the full legal name
and address of all participants.
By now you should have had second thoughts about the whole thing.
MORAL: don't accuse some one of libel or slander unless something
more important than your ego is hurt. Don't talk about any flame
on USENET as libel unless you are serious. Otherwise it is a
waste of our time, communications bandwidth and money.
--
=Dennis L. Mumaugh
Lisle, IL ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm
ste...@obed.uucp
: > I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility
: > whatsoever for any articles posted by its users.
:
: I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites
: have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the
: above on a public access unix system are worthless.
:
: Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a
: publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to:
: An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect
: publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes)
: the article. To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron,
: "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3)
: publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the
: author. Most libel suits name only the publisher as a defendant, and not
: the author; the issue of the author is secondary, and in some cases is
: immaterial.
I think that ESPECIALLY in the case where the author of an article is paying
for access to the system that the article is posted from, then it is the
AUTHOR who is the publisher. Usenet is the MEDIUM.
One does not sue the news outlet that sells the newspaper, nor does one
sue the printer who sticks the ink to the paper (unless the printer and
publisher are the same). One basically sues whomever it was that decided
the article was worth publishing. In the case of a newspaper this is, in
effect, the party with the legal title 'publisher'.
In the case of Usenet, it is ultimately the POSTER who is responsible
(unless the poster is on a system that previews the mail).
Assuming that I am correct, this would mean that sites which censor/preview
the stuff that goes thru them may in fact be making themselves MORE exposed
to the possibility of a libel suit, unless the articles that would otherwise
go thru them also have an alternate path onto the net.
Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
<Larry claimed that Mark's posting was slanderous.
<Mark claimed that Larry's was libelous.
<
<Unfortunately, as Larry points out, Mark can sue him, but he can't sue Mark!
<Why? Because he has got no way to get an address to send the summons to!
This is false. Mark Ethan Smith's address is in the white pages of the
appropriate phone book. What more do you want?
<Therefore, Mark is _not_ responsible for any postings as he cannot be held
<accountable for them!
No more accountable than anyone else on USENet, anyway.
You see, the first problem is that it's possible that era1987@violet
is not really Mark Ethan Smith. Just like it's possible that the
person posting using the name "Larry Lippman" is not really Larry
Lippman.
If I were really thinking about suing someone for a posting, the first
step would be contacting the administrators of the system to find the
name and address associated with that username/host combination.
Should they prove reticent about releasing the information (I hope
they would - releasing information about a user to random people is
not a good thing), I would then take legal action to extract that
information from them.
In any case, suing someone for a USENet posting is probably not a good
idea. As anyone moderately familiar with Unix security and netnews can
tell you, it's easy to post netnews from someone else on your host, or
from someone on another host far away (say,
mcvax!kgbvax!kremvax!cherenkov :-). Better yet, you can convince a
host far away to accept netnews posted by a user on a third host.
<mike
--
It's been a hard day's night, Mike Meyer
And I been working like a dog. m...@berkeley.edu
It's been a hard day's night, ucbvax!mwm
I should be sleeping like a log. m...@ucbjade.BITNET
Weijers G.A.H.
what? If someone in the US puts an excerpt from (for instance) Spy Catcher,
a book published by an ex-MI5 agent and banned in the UK,
on the net, and this article is forwarded to the UK, who, if
anyone, can be prosecuted? The originator (SC is legally available in the US),
the backbone site system administrator, or every SA in the UK?.
Under US or UK law?
Is the SA of a site *forwarding* a libelous article guilty of anything?
Legislation is not keeping up with new possibilities. The only practical
proposal in my view is to make the *originator* the publisher,
otherwise public access data bases might be impossible to run in the future.
I'll probably be old, gray and cranky before this issue gets sorted out.
Anonymous paper mail is still the easiest way to verbally abuse people,
whilst escaping any consequences.
NOTE: I work for a telecommunications administration, but this is my
*personal* view. I don't know the particular legal situation in the
Netherlands, but libel is not a large industry here (no millions of $$
in damages).
PS. I can't cross-post to misc.legal, not a valid group here.
--
Ge' Weijers {verbose disclaimer omitted}
PTT Dr. Neher Laboratories address change (15th of october)
Leidschendam, the Netherlands
uucp: {uunet!}mcvax!dnlunx!gew uucp: {uunet!}mcvax!hobbit!ge
J. Sitek
[the continuing saga of Mark Ethan Smith deleted]
>
> Please also notice that I did not ever and do not now advocate
> the pulling of that person's account and/or USENET access.
> I did however, decide that I needed a break from all of that and
> have since unsubscribed to soc.women (hint, hint, Mr. Lippman).
>
Well, *that* obviously worked ;-)This is not a flame on Darci, just
noting that you can't get away from the pseudo-self actualized screaming
in soc.women. Not even by unsubscribing.
>
> Darci Chapman
How about starting alt.flame.Mark-Ethan-Smith. Maybe then those of us
who *really* don't care about MES can get a break from this silliness.
Its bad enough that you can't post to soc.women without having someone
tear you a new anus, we don't need that in this group.
Jim Sitek
Flames are welcome. Even from pseudo-self actualized screamers.
Chuq Von Rospach
>Rospach (ch...@sun.COM, in his recent article <30...@sun.uucp>), and others
>are overlooking something serious.
>While the author of an allegedly libelous article might be anonymous,
>or difficult to find, the sites are neither anonymous nor (in general)
>difficult to find!
That's not strictly true. The ability to prove the origin of a message
(either site OR poster) is impossible on the network. It is possible to
create forged messages that show no trace of origin. Without such an audit
trail, you can't prove without doubt that the message actually came from
where it claims to have come without an admission by the actual poster.
For proof, see the continuing running joke of messages from 'moscvax" and
its variant each April. Or you can ask Mark Horton where that message in
mod.announce came from last April (hint: it wasn't from him).
If anyone wants definite proof of this, I'll happily post a message from the
(fictitious!) account/site of your choice to this group. I can even route it
through sri lanka or perhaps one of the research camps in antartica if you
want...
>If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he
>might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending
>article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the
>newsgroups that contained the article in question.
I wasn't ignoring this, as was claimed above. This is, in fact, a major
concern. If a site is considered to be publishing, then all other sites may
well be considered to be 'distributors' in the same flavor as a book
distributor or a bookstore might -- and there are circumstances where a
bookstore has been held liable for (primarily obscene) material in their
shop. In most cases, however, it doesn't stick and I don't know of a single
case where a distributor has been held to any liability in a libel case.
On the other hand, if the net is considered a common carrier (and my
belief is that it would) then there is no liability, because the network
does not have any input or control of the programming -- they distribute it
with their eyes closed, in other words. The only liability is with the
people/organization that generated the programming -- and as I've mentioned
above, proof of the generation would be difficult to impossible.
Tough calls on all sides.
The bottom line, as I see it (and remember, I'm just a very interested
layman who's done research) is this: we have absolutely no idea how the
court will REALLY judge a case like this. There are no precedents. We can
make educated guesses, but the courts are notoriously unreliable about
acting intelligently, especially when high technology and unfamiliar
territory is reached. We want to avoid setting precedents to the greatest
extend possible. They are expensive, time consuming, and don't really solve
anything.
Worse, the network exists on good faith and a lot of handwaving. What do you
think the FIRST thing any company will do if its lawyer gets a lawsuit over
some network the corporation doesn't even know exists?
It will pull the plug. No company in its right mind will spend lots of money
trying to protect USENET. It'll pull out and try to cuts its losses. If the
companies that hold the net together start pulling out, the net dies.
I think it is in everyone's best interest to avoid that.
Michael C. Berch
> There have been a number of articles posted recently (see the "References:"
> line) about whether it is or is not possible to sue the originating site
> for libelous postings. In article <21...@lll-tis.arpa>, Michael C. Berch
> (m...@lll-tis.arpa) pointed out that the law in this area is not settled.
> (Mr. Berch is an attorney.) The general tone of Mr. Berch's posting seemed
> to imply that Mr. Lippman's outrage had no legal outlet.
Not at all. Mr. Lippman has the same legal outlet as any other person
who believes that he or she has been defamed: to file a suit against
the author of the alleged defamatory material. All I did was point
out that site liability as a "publisher" of defamatory material is not
a matter of settled law (which Mr. Lippman seemed to assert) but is merely
a theory under which relief might be sought.
> In my humble (i.e., not $200 per hour) opinion, Mr. Berch, Chuq Von
> Rospach (ch...@sun.COM, in his recent article <30...@sun.uucp>), and others
> are overlooking something serious. Remember that the law in this area
> *is* unsettled, so new theories (as long as not completely off-the-wall --
> and maybe even then!) would of necessity be given a hearing in court.
True, of course. But getting a court to hear it -- and in this case we
are talking about an appellate court, since it is a matter of the
interpretation of common law -- means that some parties have to got
through the ridiculously expensive and time-consuming business of
litigation. I don't think anyone's interests, even Mr. Lippman's,
would be served by this.
> [...]
> If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he
> might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending
> article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the
> newsgroups that contained the article in question. This could be done on
> the theory that each site that made the article available to be read was
> in fact a "publisher" of the article, and therefore had committed the
> crime of libel. [...]
>
> What do you think would happen to USENET if such a suit were filed,
> naming the owners and administrators of all the sites in the USENET map
> as defendants?
Precisely what I am worried about, and frankly, I worry much more
about this than about whether Larry Lippman was defamed or not, or
whether Mark Ethan Smith's free-expression rights are being infringed
or not, or about the Brahms Gang/Tim Maroney brouhaha, or the Foothead
business, or any similar cases.
Therefore, my attention is not directed to whose ox was gored, but
instead on those who have attacked Usenet by threatening users and
their sites with legal or administrative sanctions. To those people
-- you know who you are -- I ask: Do you REALLY want to do this?
Do you understand the consequences, and endorse them?
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: m...@lll-tis.arpa
UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
Kyle Jones
> If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he
> might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending
> article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the
> newsgroups that contained the article in question.
This is ridiculous. I suppose if a local DJ slandered a famous
personality (and they do that a lot around here) and I had the radio
on I would be liable as well.
> What do you think would happen to USENET if such a suit were filed,
> naming the owners and administrators of all the sites in the USENET map
> as defendants?
Unknown. But I think the plaintiff of such a suit would have a hard
time gathering evidence of the malicious intent of hundreds of system
administrators who were probably asleep (unaware) when the offending
article was forwarded.
kyle jones <ky...@odu.edu> old dominion university, norfolk, va usa
Webber
> >Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof. Can
> >I demonstrate with certainty that <30...@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach?
> >No. But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from
> >him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!",
> >then it is extremely likely that he posted it.
>
> Webber notwithstanding, it's physically (and psychologically) impossible to
> read the entire net, and I stopped reading this group months ago. How can I
> defend myself against something I know nothing about?
Well, it is neither impossible nor necessary in this case. Try:
nice find /usr/spool/news -type f -exec fgrep chuq {} \; -print >& x &
If you do it regularly, you can even throw in a -newer to cut down on
the amount of time it takes. If you don't want all references (like
the ones in soc.culture.indian to you), you can match on the
appropriate From: string.
Of course, it is an easy thing to generate a message that never
appears on your machine, but is still seen by a substantial portion of
the net. For that matter, it is even possible for someone to edit a
message that you actually sent or even cancel all of your denial
messages. It is also possible to prevent your site from seeing any
news messages that contain your name in them. It is possible for you
to become the moderator of talk.bizarre. Welcome to the
T W I L I G H T Z O N E
-------- BOB (web...@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
impossible: contraction of ``imp possible,'' which is idiomatic for ``it
is possible that an imp would do it.''
impossible: standing for ``I Might Pull Off Something Slightly Impossible
By Locating Elves.''
impossible: adjective used to describe the likelihood that a logician
would shave a barber.
Dave Meile
>There have been a number of articles posted recently (see the "References:"
>line) about whether it is or is not possible to sue the originating site
>for libelous postings. In article <21...@lll-tis.arpa>, Michael C. Berch
>(m...@lll-tis.arpa) pointed out that the law in this area is not settled.
>(Mr. Berch is an attorney.) The general tone of Mr. Berch's posting seemed
>to imply that Mr. Lippman's outrage had no legal outlet.
>If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he
>might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending
>article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the
>the theory that each site that made the article available to be read was
>in fact a "publisher" of the article, and therefore had committed the
>undecided issues to the court, such a suit could drag on for years. . .
I am getting rather tired of all of this rather meaningless speculation.
If everyone is so scared of the possible outcomes, we should force a test
case to get it over with once and for all.... Then people such as
Mr. Lippman will no longer have to read "difficult" material on USENET, since
it will obviously shut itself down. And the Internet will be much less
crowded, since mailing lists will close themselves down, etc.
On the other hand, the courts may just decide that "individuals are
responsible for their own words" and put an end to this discussion.
-- Dave Meile
dav...@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
dav...@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
dav...@vx.acss.umn.edu
dav...@simvax.bitnet
Steven E. Rice, P.E.
Jeff Forys (fo...@sigi.Colorado.EDU) responded (in article
<24...@sigi.Colorado.EDU>) to my concern about the effects a lawsuit would
have on USENET:
> In article <46...@videovax.Tek.COM> Steven E. Rice, P.E. writes:
>> Suppose just the backbone sites and a scattering of other sites received
>> a subpoena demanding a copy of their news history file.
>
> Suppose a disk crashed and a couple backup tapes were mistakenly placed
> near a magnet ...
Following Watergate, some people spent time in jail because of this kind
of ill-considered (and illegal) activity. Are you volunteering to follow
in their footsteps?
Kyle Jones (ky...@xanth.UUCP) disagreed (in article <26...@xanth.UUCP>)
with my assessment of the potential for danger to the USENET:
> In <46...@videovax.Tek.COM>, Steven E. Rice, P.E. writes:
>> If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he
>> might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending
>> article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the
>> newsgroups that contained the article in question.
>
> This is ridiculous. I suppose if a local DJ slandered a famous
> personality (and they do that a lot around here) and I had the radio
> on I would be liable as well.
Of course not! But the analogy is ill-chosen. Suppose instead that
you owned a local radio station that was carrying a network program
which defamed a citizen of your community. Who do you think would be
sued? Let me guess:
1) The program's producer and director.
2) The network that distributed the program.
3) The local radio station that carried the program.
Both the local radio station and the network have an easy escape from
liability, though -- they can broadcast a public apology. (There may
be situations in which even that does not get them off the hook,
though.)
>> What do you think would happen to USENET if such a suit were filed,
>> naming the owners and administrators of all the sites in the USENET map
>> as defendants?
>
> Unknown. But I think the plaintiff of such a suit would have a hard
> time gathering evidence of the malicious intent of hundreds of system
> administrators who were probably asleep (unaware) when the offending
> article was forwarded.
It is my understanding (Mr. Berch, please straighten me out if I am
wrong!) that "malicious intent" is only a consideration in the case
of "public figures" (whatever that chances to mean on the day the
court considers the case). In the case of a private citizen, the
question becomes simply, "Are the statements true?" Whether or not
Mr. Lippman would qualify as a "public figure" is an open question.
Jeff, Kyle, and others (yes, you too, Chuq -- article <30...@sun.uucp>)
are missing the most important point in all of this while picking at
nits. USENET does not exist as a profit center which corporations are
prepared to defend. Nor is the USENET a central educational activity
that Universities are prepared to champion before State and Federal
courts. If a broad lawsuit were filed against the USENET in general,
or against a few prominent site owners and administrators, the results
would be catastrophic!
Faced with the potential (note that I did not say the *actuality* --
simply the *potential*) of unlimited liability for postings over which
they have no control, those who own the machines will simply pull the
plug on USENET. I expressed this concern in my previous posting
(<46...@videovax.Tek.COM>). In his comments on my posting (in article
<21...@lll-tis.arpa>), attorney Michael C. Berch (m...@lll-tis.arpa)
concurred with my concerns:
> Precisely what I am worried about . . .
It may seem to be harmless fun to disregard both reality and
reasonableness when sitting down to write a blast at someone you don't
know. However, in the real world, actions have consequences. All it
would take is one person who decides he won't put up with being falsely
accused, and the fat is in the fire. The writer would find that
defending himself against such a suit (even if he were eventually held
to be not liable) would be a very expensive and time-consuming
experience.
There would be consequences for the rest of us, too -- even though we
are not directly involved in the verbal warfare. One potential
consequence of use of the network as a tool for broadcasting defamatory
statements is the utter destruction of USENET.
Steve Rice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
new: ste...@videovax.tv.Tek.com
old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!se-ID:t
D. V. W. James
I would just like to update Chuq's reference. In a course on Media
Law this summer I did some research on the Usenet liability question. As
Chuq said, it is a legal nightmare. And as of July 1987 I could find only
one case of a BB operator (the closest equivalent to a USENET sysadmin)
being arrested for ANY action taken by his users (and that was credit card
fraud.) The charges were later dropped. There have been, as of that date
, according to my search through U Ky's law library, *no* cases of libel
stemming from BB useage. Studies on the problem simply agree that there is
a problem, but opinions differ widely as to just how liable admins should be
held. If anyone is interested in the cases and studies I found, just send
me a note, I still have the paper online somewhere...
--
Later y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure.
cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!vnend; vn...@engr.uky.edu; vnend%ukecc...@ukma.BITNET
Also: cn00...@ukcc.BITNET, Compuserve 73277,1513 and VNEND on GEnie
I may be smart, but I can lift heavy things.
j...@alice.uucp
> Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof. Can
> I demonstrate with certainty that <30...@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach?
> No. But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from
> him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!",
> then it is extremely likely that he posted it.
Um, err, not quite. It's very true that if some dweeb posts
an article that says it comes from your machine, lots of news software
will realize it's "already been there" and not send it there,
ergo the person who's been forged (not the forger) will NEVER
see the article, or know that it exists, except by means other
than direct observation.
This feature of news software does indeed bother me.
--
TEDDY BEARS HAVE *GREEN* EYES!
"...and a song in my heart, and it's ..."
(ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
HASA, A+S divisions.Copyright JJ 1987. All rights to mail reserved, USENET redistribution otherwise granted to those who allow free redistritution.
Gene W. Smith
>In article <21...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> j...@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP
>(James Wilbur Lewis) writes:
>This cort of case seems to come up every years or so.
>The first time I came across Matthew Wiener was some time back when he
>wanted to sue Rich Rosen for defamation, and I posted a couple of articles
>to try to get him (and others who were beginning to get hot under the collar)
>to cool down.
This is not quite correct. Matthew Wiener was taking a dig at
Rich Rosen, which consisted of trying to find if he would have
grounds if he wanted to sue--which he had no intention of doing.
At least that is how I remember the incident, and I am the
closest thing to an expert on Wienerology left on the net.
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnetgangster/Berkeley CA 94720
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is
the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we *show*. We
do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason
Max Hauser
In article <46...@videovax.Tek.COM> ste...@videovax.Tek.COM
(Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes:
[A great deal of stuff, including some uncommonly thoughtful points,
answering a lot of low-cost armchair speculation, and then this
sensible remark:]
>...
>It may seem to be harmless fun to disregard both reality and
>reasonableness when sitting down to write a blast at someone you don't
>know. However, in the real world, actions have consequences. All it
>would take is one person who decides he won't put up with being falsely
>accused, and the fat is in the fire. The writer would find that
>defending himself against such a suit (even if he were eventually held
>to be not liable) would be a very expensive and time-consuming
>experience.
Valuable though this point is in warning people from blasting away
in anger, I am very much concerned about the flip side -- that the
last sentence is not necessarily true, and that moreover this is
unfortunate, because it could lead to to real personal injury over
the net. Some would-be libelers, you see, perceive very little
accountability, not just because they are irresponsible or feel
untraceable, but also through lack of substantial assets, income
or position at risk to civil action. Even if they ARE found liable,
they may be incapable of restitution, and they know it. (Is it
perhaps only my impression that these are the very same people
who are themselves quick to sue people or institutions that do have
assets, hoping to "cash in"?)
It is tragic that some of the individuals most likely to cause
personal injury are the least personally accountable in our society,
a trite observation but relevant. Consider the uninsured-motorist
problem as another example. (I will not comment about politicians
and institutional officers, as this discussion concerns personal
injury on a "retail" level.)
This is part of my increasing concern about extending this net
more and more to the general public, great though the rewards
indisputably are -- on the up side.
Max Hauser / m...@eros.berkeley.edu / ...{!decvax}!ucbvax!eros!max
Robert Sweeney
>I am getting rather tired of all of this rather meaningless speculation.
>If everyone is so scared of the possible outcomes, we should force a test
>case to get it over with once and for all....
But not with us, please. 'dasys1' (The Big Electric Cat; the system from
which the libelous article was allegedly posted) is owned and operated by
two college students, myself, and the person who received the phone call
from Mr. Lippman regarding the lawsuit. Our personal budgets are typical
of the average college student. Any extra money we make is piped into the
system, for the most part, and day-to-day system expenses are covered by the
support fees the users of the Cat send in. We can't afford to handle any
sort of legal action; we definately can't hire a lawyer. If we're sued
(and the lawsuit alleges something which I can't just drive over to Clarence
Town Court and debunk), we'll just shut down, thus depriving many net
users of their access point (although not MES; he has access to several
public machines around the country).
I really don't see the point in all of this. Let the article expire, and
be done with it. Mr. Lippman claims slander, however it seems that his
outburst regarding the situation has prompted far more negative opinion
among netreaders than anything contained in the original posting could
possibly have. (assuming that it was libelous at all; I don't generally
read soc.women, which is the group I assume the message was posted to).
--
Robert Sweeney {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!rsweeney
Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator
"You crossed my line of death!"
Roger L. Long
USENET actually come from the organization or user they say they do? It
is quite easy for me to post an article to the net that would appear to
come from la...@kitty.UUCP saying that "Smith" molested little girls.
By the definitions posted by Larry, that would be libel. But how would
anyone be able to prove or disprove that Larry actually posted it?
--
Roger L. Long
FileNet Corp
{hplabs,trwrb}!felix!bytebug
John T. Nelson
Yet it is the system administrator's job to ask "Is this person simply
being outspoken or is this person being obnoxious?" First amendment
rights are not a sanction to allow just any kind of behavior.
--
John T. Nelson UUCP: rutgers!mimsy!rlgvax!sundc!potomac!jtn
trwrb!ihnp4!rlgvax!sundc!potomac!jtn
Advanced Decision Systems Internet: j...@ads.arpa
1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611
*OOP* *ACK*
_ /|
\'o.O'
=(___)y agrou'venagaromost c
D. V. W. James
>
>Please remember one major thing. Libel and slander MUST involve
>damage to one's reputation and must be monetary in nature.
>
For a libel to occur, at least four, and sometimes five, conditions
must be fulfilled. These are:
1) the statement must be defamatory. That is, it must tend to
hurt someone's reputation;
2) it must identify its intended victim;
3) it must be communicated, that is, it must be broadcast in
such a way that at least one other person other than the
victom or perpetrator hears or sees it;
4) in cases involving the mass media there is also required a
proof of fault. That means a the publisher must have been
either guilty of actual malice or have been negligent in
publishing it;
5) in cases where actual malice cannot be proven, the U.S.
Supreme Court has said that the victom of the libel must also
prove damages. (Overbeck and Pullen, 1985)
Overbeck, Wayne and Pullen, Rick D. (1985). Major Principles of
_____ __________ __
Media Law (Second Edition) New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and
_____ ___ ______ _______
Winston
Copyright (c) 1987 by David W. James
The above is from a paper I wrote this summer on the subject of
Libel and USENET. Note that damages need not be proven in all cases.
--
Later y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure.
cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!vnend; vn...@engr.uky.edu; vnend%ukecc...@ukma.BITNET
Also: cn00...@ukcc.BITNET, Compuserve 73277,1513 and VNEND on GEnie
"...the net exists on good faith and a lot of hand waving." Chuq
Webber
> ... If a broad lawsuit were filed against the USENET in general,
> or against a few prominent site owners and administrators, the results
This is an interesting claim, but your application is to small. Think
of the profits being lost to Commercial Networks due to the number of
people that prefer to use the ``freebee Usenet.'' Think of the
Communications Services that have lost money becauses it is cheaper
to send a message over Usenet than it is to pay for overnight delivery.
Think of the journals that have lost readers because it is cheaper
to subscribe to a micro group than to subscribe to a micro journal.
Think of the headhunters that have lost customers to misc.jobs.wanted.
Think of the companies that have lost business due to messages on
misc.consumers. Recall the businessman who was accused of fraud on
news.announce.important earlier this year.
All of these groups don't rent lawyers, they own them. They regularly
use those lawyers as a part of corporate strategy to maximize profit.
Now, you tell me that they don't even have to go to court, just file
papers and their troubles will be over. And you think the big threat
is participants in a flame war over on soc.women?????????????????????
----- BOB (web...@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
mag...@watdcsu.uucp
[ This comment is only concerned with the issue of detecting faked
articles ]
In article <90...@felix.UUCP> byt...@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) writes:
>But speaking of liability, just how does one PROVE that statements made on
>USENET actually come from the organization or user they say they do? It
>is quite easy for me to post an article to the net that would appear to
>come from la...@kitty.UUCP saying that "Smith" molested little girls.
[munch...]
> Roger L. Long
Yes you could by faking the header - BUT once the forged message
leaves your site it will leave a trail pointing back to you. Every site
you connect to will tack on it's own part of the full distribution path and
if enough people compare the results it would be simple to determine where
it _didn't_ come from by seeking a common root- and in many cases it would be
possible to track it back to the actual poster _if_ that site keeps logs. If
you do manage to post from several places at once you might cause problems
with this method but there are other methods by using article numbers that
further help to make undetected forgeries harder to do...
Summery: Lets say you faked a header: aa/bb/cc/userX
where the path 'aa/bb/cc/userX' is valid - this does NOT mean that all people
who normally receive userX will also receive your posting as if it
were comming from the correct path. The only way around this is
if you happened to be on one of the sole links userX uses to reach the net
and if nether of those links keep logging info... Even with the growing
number of MSDOS [ et. all ] machines it would be safe to assume that
on average they , at some point down the path, connect to a machine that keeps
logs. So, the main problem with tracking down fake postings remains on average
with the effort it takes...
This issue suggest that if the average person wants to detect if their
articles are being faked they can suggest to all their friends to keep track
of the path headers for articles they receive from them. On many systems this
could be a simple as a grep of the news logs at regular intervals ...
Best Regards,
# Mike Gore
# Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home )
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
Thomas J Keller
>
> Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof. Can
> I demonstrate with certainty that <30...@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach?
> No. But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from
> him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!",
> then it is extremely likely that he posted it.
Is it really? With in excess of 280 newsgroups on USENET at present, can
you clearly conclude that the failure of a party to disclaim a forgery of which
s/he may be completely unaware constitutes evidence of ANY kind? I should think
not.
>
> If there were a forgery, you would have to show the court why you didn't point
> it out until you were served with the suit.
On the contrary, it is only necessary to introduce expert testamony to the
effect that such forgeries are easy, and that the techniques for same are well
known. It then rests upon the plaintiff to PROVE that the defendant indeed
made the posting(s) in question, something you cannot do easily.
> The court might believe you and
> they might not, but it's up to them. The principle of reasonable doubt does
> not apply in civil litigation.
As usual, Mr. Templeton, you have it *ALMOST* right...what doesn't apply in
civil litigation is REASON, of any sort. The number of outrageous, ridiculous
and outright hilarious decisions that come out of the civil courts is sometimes
beyond belief.
--
Tom Keller
VOICE : + 1 707 575 9493
UUCP : {ihnp4,ames,sun,amdahl,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!gilsys!mc68020
Greg Stevens
Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of
the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to
persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander? Perhaps the
system administrators of the backbone sites could fomulate such a
policy and generate the text of some release message that will be
displayed to first time posters ( similar to the startup message
of "rn" ) Couldn't the existance of such a policy put to rest any
future incidents such as this one? Comments?
--
Greg Stevens, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University
{ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!glacier!shasta!stevens, ste...@su-shasta.ARPA
Dave Collier-Brown
| [list of quasi-competitors to usenet]
|All of these groups don't rent lawyers, they own them. They regularly
|use those lawyers as a part of corporate strategy to maximize profit.
|
|Now, you tell me that they don't even have to go to court, just file
|papers and their troubles will be over. And you think the big threat
|is participants in a flame war over on soc.women?????????????????????
Real companies restrict legal actions to situations where:
1) the absolute cost is low enough to budget for,
2) the advantage of a win is significant, and
3) the suit will not be seen as an attempt to use the courts
to establish competitive advantage.
The last is what kept one of our local shysters from starting a suit
against a supplier of goods/services to him: even though he could put
the supplier out of business by a bit of carefully-applied barratry
(which see), he would have run too great a risk of having the local
bar association burn him at the stake.
If he was an employee, the state tends to do the stakeing...
--
David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb
Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its
350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind)
CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
Chuq Von Rospach
>the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to
>persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander?
Well, first because it is very unlikely that a court would allow it to stand
even if we did adopt it (they're not hot on enforcing explicit contracts.
Why should they accept an implicit contract?)
Second, USENET doesn't exist. The individual sites on USENET do, but there
is no central authority that could create such a policy. Each site could
adopt the policy, but since the primary threat for a lawsuit on such a thing
would come from a user on a remote site (which probably doesn't have the
policy on board)it doesn't really mean anything.
Third, the policy isn't enforceable. How are you going to stop them from
suing? Kick them off the machine? (big deal...)
Fourth, do you REALLY want a USENET where someone who is truly libeled has
no recourse? Think about that one. Much as I hate the thought of having
USENET end up in court, I hate the thought of being unable to take that step
more. May it never be needed, but...
chuq
Steven E. Rice, P.E.
suggested that we end all the speculation about what might happen if
a libel case were filed against one or more USENET sites by
". . . forc[ing] a test case to get it over with once and for all...."
This may be typical of the views of uninvolved bystanders: "Let's you
and him fight!"
Robert Sweeney (rswe...@dasys1.UUCP) wasn't fond of Dave's suggestion!
Mr. Sweeney, one of the owners of dasys1, responded in article
<16...@dasys1.UUCP>:
> But not with us, please. 'dasys1' ( . . . ) is owned and operated by
> two college students, myself, and the person who received the phone call
> from Mr. Lippman regarding the lawsuit. Our personal budgets are typical
> of the average college student. . . . We can't afford to handle any
> sort of legal action; we definately can't hire a lawyer. If we're
> sued . . . we'll just shut down . . .
This is precisely the attitude that > 99% of the system owners and
administrators will take if suits begin to be filed. Most will take
*preventive* steps, to avoid the possibility of being sued -- i.e.,
they will remove net access *before* problems start!
In article <3...@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>, Greg Stevens
(ste...@cascade.STANFORD.EDU) proposed an alternative solution:
> Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of
> the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to
> persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander? . . .
A fundamental principle the courts hold is that you cannot voluntarily
relinquish rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution or by law.
For example, you are not legally bound if you sign an employment
agreement which reads:
Because Gigantic Monopoly, Inc. has been kind enough to give
me a job, I hereby resign and irrevocably give up all right
to file complaints against Gigantic Monopoly, Inc. with any
agency of the State or Federal government (or government
at any other level), including, but not limited to, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I also
agree not to testify against Gigantic Monopoly, Inc. in any
administrative proceeding or court case.
Agreeing to give up your right to sue for slander or libel would be
an equally invalid agreement.
So the $64,000 question is, "Can we do anything at all?" I think we
can. Kyle Jones <ky...@dew.cs.odu.edu> sent me a letter to which I
responded by email. Kyle replied:
> Your comments really make good sense. Post what you wrote to me to
> news.admin. The private correspondence I have had with other
> system/news administrators leads me to believe that it is not the
> administrators that are siding with the flamers. Rather it is news
> readers that want to get in on a good argument.
Given Kyle's good judgement and persuasive arguments, how could I
resist? [ 8^) ] To be serious for a moment, I think the suggestions
contained in the letter will help:
= I think there are some things that can be done to reduce the problem.
=
= One is for those of us who abhor unsubstantiated personal attacks to,
= in general, side with the "injured" party, rather than reflexively
= sticking up for the "right" of the flamers to say anything they want
= without incurring any liability (in the mistaken notion that this is
= what "freedom of speech" means). This would accomplish two goals:
=
= 1. Put the flamers on notice that they will not get the kind of
= approval they have been seeking (and up until now, receiving).
=
= 2. Give the injured party the feeling that there are a lot of
= people out there who care about him and who are supporting
= him. This will lessen the tendency to for the injured party
= to feel, "Some turkey defamed me and now these yoyos are
= sitting around laughing about it. I'll show them! I'll sue!"
=
= Another is, in your words, "the guillottine." Each news administrator
= (or system administrator) is going to have to be cognizant of the
= problems his users are causing -- at least when it gets to the point that
= complaints are filed. If complaints are filed, the administrator needs
= to sit down with the person and discuss the postings in question. If
= the postings are indeed defamatory (meaning there is no evidence to
= back up the charges), then the administrator should warn the user and
= yank his account and/or news access if malicious postings continue.
=
= Harsh? No. Just real world. As has been pointed out by others, the
= user has little to lose (unless he is sued personally). The system
= owner and the system administrator have a lot to lose, on the other
= hand. Therefore, they need to be prepared to deal with problems
= before the situation gets out of hand (being served with a summons
= to appear in court is a clear sign that things are out of hand. . .).
Steve Rice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
new: ste...@videovax.tv.Tek.com
old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever
Ken Farnen
> civilized manner, it will not become necessary to find out what the
> courts might decide. . .
>
> Steve Rice
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> new: ste...@videovax.tv.Tek.com
> old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever
I hope you are right, Steve, I for one, do not want to see the Net die, and
I have a nasty feeling your analysis (that if someone DOES test this in the
courts, either side of the pond), the death of the UseNet will result.
I can't comment on US law, I know little enough about the law of my own
country, never mind anyone elses! But I was involved with the BBOA over here
(the Bulletin Board Operators Ascociaton) and the legal advice we got was
that the only laws that were liable to be applied in a situation of an
electronic communication system being sued (or prosecuted) were those that
related to 'paper' publishing. If this is indeed true, there is no doubt that
the operator, or proprietor of the system that is 'publishing' the item is
the guy in the frame. Over here, there is an Act of Parliament that covers
the Postal service, giving them an explicit waiver of any responsibility
for items passed through their medium ("Mute Carrier" I think is the term
used), and interestingly enough, the first UK public Viewdata (read
videotext) service managed to get themselves written into an amendment of
this bill, extending the cover to THAT SINGLE SYSTEM EXPLICITLY. This
was when we still had a single, national Post/Telecomunications body,
rather than the new separate, privitised ones.
Subsequent events seem to show that no-one is sure enough of the law to want
to get in the way of it, e.g....
One of my favorite BBS systems was shut down in '85, it had a SIG for 'Hackers'
which carried the usual passwords, 'phone numbers (no credit card numbers,
you guys in the states were much more progressive than us there! :-) ), it
was generally a good board, with a Multi-User games section, agony aunt, i.e.
not DEVOTED to hacking! The sysop wasn't a hacker, or a 'kid', and he
provided a hackers SIG because that was what people wanted. There was no
legal problems here, he was just banned from all Telephone service. This
was a well worked out punishment, as he was a freelance contractor (read:
lived via the phone!).
There was a big storm over a few 'joke' messages on TELECOM-GOLD
(a commercial E-Mail system), result? They withdrew ALL non-E-mail message
facilities, no more bulletin board!
Very recently, a BBS had the bad luck to be featured as an 'expose'' of
"The underground electronic communication network for perverts, paedophiliacs,
homosexuals and prostitutes" (you know, what computer comms. is REALLY all
about :-} ). The publicity did him the WORLD of good, and his original views
on free speech have changed! He isn't interested in running a BBS any more.
The point(s) I'm trying to make are:
There is always a body of people, a vocal minority, looking for a cause in
their fight for justice and morality.
This is a warning more to BBS operators, and public access UseNet sites (but
hey, since we don't get soc.singles over here, I don't know what the
Commercial/Academic lot are up to, do I? :-) ).
* If one of these crusaders takes exception to something, I'm willing to
bet they will aim their substantial funds and power at the system, and the
operators, NOT at the originators of messages.
As for CIVIL liability, all that the traffic of the last few weeks prove is
that the only way we will find out who is liable is the HARD way (someone gets
sued). I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO FIND OUT THAT BADLY! Let's just keep
our hair on, and learn to ignore 'stupid' comments from others, I doubt that
any other course will help to improve ANYONE's network credibility.
To people who offer commercial services, and/or public UseNet access, all I
can do is give you the findings of the study we did at the BBOA.
* It's very uncertain that any disclaimer will protect you, it'll be up to
some bored judge to decide whether it's enforcable.
* Take out legal liability insurance, or, if you prefer, cross your fingers
before you go to bed at night.
* If you want your user's to be responsible, your best bet is to try to include
an indemnity in your user's contract, along the lines of "The user agrees to
indemnify <your-name-here> against any and all actions against <your-name-here>
in respect of material posted onto the system by you." It may not help that
much, but at least you get the satisfaction of sueing the guy who caused it
all :-)
I think the only solution for the net is for us all to develop thicker skins,
I want to keep my newsfeed (I only just got it!), and I know how quiet it
would be without all the US messages!
As a final note, if anyone rang my employer to complain about my actions on
the 'net', I would smile. If they tried to get me fired, I may even snigger,
and wonder what sort of reference I would get when I sacked me (double :-) ).
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, or even expert, all this is from memory of some
reasearch we did a fair time ago, don't take it as the gospel, it's not
straight out of K&R.
- - - - - - - - - -
Matrix Software Development | Ken Farnen. UUCP:..!mcvax!ukc!matr-a!ken
* Unix Software Solutions * |flames and complaints to| VOX: +44 51 737 1915
*Apple Certified Mac Developers*|my boss, ken@matr-a :-) | BBS: +44 51 737 1882
Steve Nuchia
> Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of
> the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to
> persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander? Perhaps the
> system administrators of the backbone sites could fomulate such a
> policy and generate the text of some release message that will be
> displayed to first time posters ( similar to the startup message
> of "rn" ) Couldn't the existance of such a policy put to rest any
> future incidents such as this one? Comments?
A noble idea, and I would like to live under a legal system in
which it would work. But I don't think it would work under present
U.S law. Individual responsibility is not in style in this country,
and people generaly target their suits for maximum probable return
rather than with a sense of justice.
Also, I think that this would be found to be quite weak protection
legally, much as the shrink-wrap licenses and most warranty disclaimers
are pretty much worthless. I think the warranty disclaimer theory is
directly relevant - when you market something you have certain legal
responsibilities to the customers that you cannot weasle out of by
printing a disclaimer; the disclaimer is not illegal per say, it
simply carries no legal force where it is contradicted by some law.
(such disclaimers may be partially effective, for instance in limiting
consequential damage claims and such.)
Similarly, I suspect that if it were found that the site or the usenet
itself had "published" a libelous article, such a diclaimer would
have no protective effect.
--
Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy.
uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be
(713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947
Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR
> Yes you could by faking the header - BUT once the forged message
> leaves your site it will leave a trail pointing back to you. Every site
> you connect to will tack on it's own part of the full distribution path and
> if enough people compare the results it would be simple to determine where
> it _didn't_ come from by seeking a common root- and in many cases it would be
> possible to track it back to the actual poster _if_ that site keeps logs. If
> you do manage to post from several places at once you might cause problems
> with this method but there are other methods by using article numbers that
> further help to make undetected forgeries harder to do...
I challenge him to figure out where this article originated from,
where it was inserted into the network, and who really wrote it in
the first place. I believe that the network does not have sufficient
audit trails to make this possible.
And as a courtesy, someone ought to mail him a copy of this article;
you see, as a consequence of the forgery method, his site will not
get a copy.
Of course, this might really be Mike Gore, arguing with himself...
Werner Uhrig
meaning to speak up in support of Larry Lippman in this (most
unfortunate) unpleasantness that he finds himself in, simply to let
him (and others) know that there are people on the net who think well
of him and who will support him when attacked unfairly.
I have been on the net for nearly 10 years, and Larry has been an
outstanding participant and contributor for many of those years and I
want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to him for
that. From Mark Smith, on the other hand, I have yet to see an
article that would lead me to say anything similar. Many have been
distasteful and offensive (to me), demonstrating (to me) that it is not
worth my time to read further what this person has to say.
Consequently, I cannot say that I am fully informed (who can, really)
on the details regarding the problem Larry seems to have with Mark (or
anyone else) - but what I have seen leads me to believe that I would
invite Larry to have an account on my machine any day, whereas I feel
embarrassed having to share even the same network with Mark (and I am
willing to chip in a few bucks to the defense fund of anyone that
needs to go to court over cancelling one of Mark's USENET account).
In the past, I have made a habit of sending supportive Email to people
who I felt needed and deserved support in order to be able to ignore
some of the more outrageous statements by others, as a public argument
with an obviously unreasonable person does not benefit anyone, really.
We can, at least, create the illusion that certain folks have noone
paying the least attention to their articles, and, without any
audience reaction, I am sure even the most obnoxious person will,
eventually, get tired of posting articles or mailing Email-messages
which seem to get ignored completely.
In this spirit, please ignore this article ...((-:,
---Werner (I deny having authored this article, as I am, obviously,
way too busy to have found time to write it;
ask anyone around here ...)
--
INTERNET: kr...@emx.cc.utexas.edu
UUCP: kr...@ut-emx.UUCP (or ...!ut-sally!ut-emx!kraut)
Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR
The current discussion has been whether it is _impossible_ or not to
detect faked usenet articles - most recently re: <39...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
- and others. I indicated that in many cases [ with exceptions outlined ]
that it may be possible to actually narrow down where a faked article came
from [ again with exceptions outlined ]. To contend this point someone
faked a message in my name and challenged me to figure out where it came from.
They used an article with ID <40...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> Dated: 18 Oct 87
20:34:25... [ His posting included at the end of this article ]
Here is a small part of the history log from watdcsu showing that
article 4000 doesn't exist - yet. No need to take my word for this as most
anyone can check it _if_ their site keeps history logs .
[ ex: /usr/lib/history - on some machines ]:
<39...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> 10/17/87 23:11 rec.woodworking/278
<39...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> 10/18/87 04:03 comp.sys.hp/257
<39...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> 10/19/87 06:15 comp.sys.hp/258
<39...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> 10/19/87 12:59 comp.sys.mac/7390
<39...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> 10/19/87 13:16 ont.events/813 uw.talks/319 uw.grad.cs/2336
<39...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> 10/19/87 16:21 sci.space/3234 sci.physics/2385
---
It's obvious that the poster thus made a silly mistake in his attempt
to fake the posting in question. His mistake however underlines part of the
false assumption that a few people have about the _ease_ of faking articles
_undetected_. But rather then letting this issue get too clouded I would
to say that my original observations were in regard to a statement that
it was _impossible_ to detect faked articles. I knew that in some
cases this would be true however I outlined a few such issues in earlier
articles to attempt to avoid this misunderstanding. Now to avoid further
confusion I should say that I feel that the claim that it is 'impossible' is
in many ways as faulty as if someone had said that it is 'always possible'.
I had considered as a premise the issue of the possible success of a
determined forger _vs_ the possible success of a group of determined
sysadmins [ or just everyday concerned people at widely diverse sites ]. By
talking about possible case by case details and problems with each side of
the issue we could very well end up leaving the overall issue untouched.
My objections to the suggested easy of faking an article undetected
are based on the premise of what _could_ be done rather then what _would_ be
done. What would be done is determined by how important the case by case issue
is and how many people care enough to act [ If the person affected has many
friends who might email copies of the article in order to compare path headers
etc...] The importance of backtracking <40...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> is very low.
So while there is nothing stopping someone from attempting to fake an
article on the flip side there is also nothing stopping the affected person
from posting a request for help [ hopefully they would ask for replies by
email! ]. The _possibility_ that they could get caught is the main deterance
- as long as people know that faking _isn't_ simple when faced with determined
efforts of detection...
David Herron [ amoung a few others ] was kind enough to
forward me the posting which follows:
-------------------------------------------
Path: ukma!rutgers!ho95e!homxb!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath!watdcsu!magore
From: "Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR" <mag...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: A challenge for those who believe that the network has security
Message-Id: <40...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 87 20:34:25 GMT
References: <39...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: "Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR" <mag...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 22
Xref: ukma news.admin:1123 misc.legal:2913
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 87 10:56:31 EDT
Resent-From: da...@e.ms.uky.edu
Resent-To: mag...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu
Apparently-To: <@math.waterloo.edu:mag...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Status: R
--
<---- David Herron, Local E-Mail Hack, da...@ms.uky.edu, da...@ms.uky.csnet
<---- {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, da...@UKMA.BITNET
<---- I thought that time was this neat invention that kept everything
<---- from happening at once. Why doesn't this work in practice?
Valerie Maslak
>It has been many days, probably several weeks, that I have been
>meaning to speak up in support of Larry Lippman in this (most
>unfortunate) unpleasantness that he finds himself in, simply to let
>him (and others) know that there are people on the net who think well
>of him and who will support him when attacked unfairly.
>
>article that would lead me to say anything similar. Many have been
>distasteful and offensive (to me), demonstrating (to me) that it is not
>worth my time to read further what this person has to say.
>
>Consequently, I cannot say that I am fully informed (who can, really)
>on the details regarding the problem Larry seems to have with Mark (or
>anyone else)
Well, everyone but me seems to have had their say on this subject
including those like our poster above who admit they don't know what
they're talking about...so now I'll have my say, to the powers that
be, so I beg your indulgence. But pray, Mr. Uhrig, how do you so
pontificate when you admit to being uninformed?
Not so long ago, I was the voice that proposed a soc.men group,
solicited and gathered votes for it, hoping that it would once again
make soc.women a place where reasonable discussion could take place.
Larry Lippman and his ilk (yes, his ilk, because the postings on
soc.women are recently more than 2-1 from men, not women) have made
that impossible. You say, Mr. Uhrig, that Mr. Lippman finds himself
in some unpleasnatness? Au contraire, he instigated it.
Here's the truth. Larry inserted himself into a discussion of names
and gender in soc.women that was being carried out on a level that was
generally tolerable and interesting. He disregarded the "rules of etiquette"
in the group and generally made a nuisance of himself. When the rebuttals
to his messages began to indicate the level of anger and frustration that
he was arousing in Mark and other soc.women participants, he went crying home
to get his "big brother the attorney" to take up his fight for him.
Anyone who took the trouble to look into soc.women below the surface
of the last week would know that Larry's tactics have not been
appreciated by most of the regular posters there, men and women
alike. However, his nastiness has managed to be a coalescing force
that drove a core group of many of the soc.women regulars to a
woman-only mailing list; kill files and the "n" key weren't enough
anymore. I was one of those; I can't stand to read the group that I
worked very hard to protect.
Basically what Mr. Lippman has been doing is akin to walking into a black
neigborhood and yelling "Look at all the niggers" and then wondering
why he was clouted from behind with a baseball bat in a dark alley.
Mr. Lippmann, and Mr. Uhrig, may have enough tunnel vision that they
don't realize that their attitude and behavior has been at least as
objectionable to some of us, to whom soc.women was an important
resource, as Mark's has been to them.
I don't care how wonderful Lippman has been in any other newsgroup,
Mr. Uhrig. In soc.women he was a boor and a bully. I wouldn't trade
one Mark Ethan Smith for 20 of him. Mark is a skillful debater, and
pulls no punches. His articles are often painful to read. But the
pain is from seeing the truth, naked, held up like a mirror.
So, net gods, lest you think that this is a tempest in a teapot,
it's not. But the issue is not whether Lippmann was libeled but
rather whether being an unconventional woman is net.death.
Valerie Maslak
Minerva
Egads, I thought this had died down. Since it has not, I feel compelled
to have my say (everyone else has :-) and in particular, reply to this Werner
person.
In article <1...@ut-emx.UUCP> kr...@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes:
>It has been many days, probably several weeks, that I have been
>meaning to speak up in support of Larry Lippman in this (most
>unfortunate) unpleasantness that he finds himself in, simply to let
>him (and others) know that there are people on the net who think well
>of him and who will support him when attacked unfairly.
And where were (are) you when Larry attacks others unfairly? Do you give
them your support? Or do just support Larry unconditionally?
>I have been on the net for nearly 10 years, and Larry has been an
>outstanding participant and contributor for many of those years and I
>want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to him for
>that. From Mark Smith, on the other hand, I have yet to see an
>article that would lead me to say anything similar. Many have been
>distasteful and offensive (to me), demonstrating (to me) that it is not
>worth my time to read further what this person has to say.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Here is mine. Larry Lippman
has shown himself to be anything *but* an outstanding participant and
contributor in soc.women. He has attacked other people quite unfairly,
*his* disclaimer being that the person he attacked had said all of these things
themselves, and that he was just summarizing for the benefit of the rest of
us. Did he, for proof, include the articles to which he was referring? Nope.
He told us to go look them up ourselves. And if our sites expire quickly?
Too bad.
He has since continued to be nothing but a nuisance where his views and opinions
are unwelcomed in a group where the focus is women's issues. He has demonstrated
to me and others, that it is not worth our time to read further what he has to
say.
Mark Smith, on the other hand, has made what I feel are valuable contributions
to soc.women. You may not like them. Fine. That's no reason to show support
for someone who advocates having Mark's account pulled. No matter how obnoxious
Larry has been in soc.women (and he's been *real* obnoxious), no one has
asked that *his* account be pulled.
>Consequently, I cannot say that I am fully informed (who can, really)
>on the details regarding the problem Larry seems to have with Mark (or
>anyone else) -
I *can* say that I'm fairly informed - until recently, Larry Lippman was
not in my KILL files. I am a regular reader of soc.women and other newgroups.
>but what I have seen leads me to believe that I would
>invite Larry to have an account on my machine any day, whereas I feel
>embarrassed having to share even the same network with Mark (and I am
>willing to chip in a few bucks to the defense fund of anyone that
>needs to go to court over cancelling one of Mark's USENET account).
Well, to each his own, I suppose. What I have seen is more than you (by
your own admission). I strongly suggest that you take a look at all of
Larry's articles before you make such an opinion.
>In the past, I have made a habit of sending supportive Email to people
>who I felt needed and deserved support in order to be able to ignore
>some of the more outrageous statements by others, as a public argument
>with an obviously unreasonable person does not benefit anyone, really.
Ah, you're talking about Larry and his unreasonableness, I take it?
No? Could have fooled me.
>We can, at least, create the illusion that certain folks have noone
>paying the least attention to their articles, and, without any
>audience reaction, I am sure even the most obnoxious person will,
>eventually, get tired of posting articles or mailing Email-messages
>which seem to get ignored completely.
This is exactly what I have suggested that my fellow readers of soc.women
do in the case of Larry Lippman. I suggest that you take a moment to read
that group, Larry's articles in particular, and then let me know if you
still have such a high (and inflated) opinion of him.
However, this is not good enough for dear Mr. Lippman. He wants to control
(personally, it seems) who has access to USENET and who does not. I'd be
very, very, careful, Werner. You may say something that your idol here doesn't
approve of, and you could be booted off next.
>In this spirit, please ignore this article ...((-:,
Not bloody likely. Larry didn't bother to ignore Mark's, now did he? :-)
> ---Werner (I deny having authored this article, as I am, obviously,
> way too busy to have found time to write it;
> ask anyone around here ...)
Minerva (You'll never get me to deny the authorship of this article.
I'm too proud of it; ask anyone around here...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( /\ ) |
( \__||__/ ) | Man: Man is the hunter. Woman is the civilizing
( __ __ ) | influence, and when women abandon that role
( / || \ ) | men become...
( || ) |
|| | Woman: cranky and start wars.
|| |
|| | -Nicole Hollander
## |
|| | ...tektronix!teksce!bucket!minerva
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Berch
> (ste...@cascade.STANFORD.EDU) proposed an alternative solution:
>
> > Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of
> > the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to
> > persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander? . . .
>
> A fundamental principle the courts hold is that you cannot voluntarily
> relinquish rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution or by law.
> For example, you are not legally bound if you sign an employment
> future against an employer] [...]
>
> Agreeing to give up your right to sue for slander or libel would be
> an equally invalid agreement.
The specific waiver in Mr. Rice's article is undoubtedly invalid
as against public policy, but it is a utterly gross misstatement of
the law to assert that "you cannot voluntarily relinquish rights that are
guaranteed by the Constitution or by law". People do it all the time --
ranging from giving up the right to sue on a contract via an
arbitration clause; agreeing not to pursue various claims, defenses,
or methods of calculating damages via a liquidated damages clause;
agreeing to curtail your right of freedom of expression in connection
with proprietary or classified information; etc., etc.
I don't know if a general waiver of the right to sue for defamation
would stand up. Perhaps not. But most probably such a waiver included
in a specific contract or transaction (say, in an agreement to have a
biography or documentatory about your life produced) WOULD be enforceable.
How this relates to Usenet is uncertain. I am unaware of the case law in
this specific area: can anyone cite a leading case?
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: m...@lll-tis.arpa
UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
Michael C. Berch
> [Re Lippman/Smith debacle...]
>
> So, net gods, lest you think that this is a tempest in a teapot,
> it's not. But the issue is not whether Lippmann was libeled but
> rather whether being an unconventional woman is net.death.
>
> Valerie Maslak
Actually, it IS a tempest in a teapot, and some of us are trying our
level best to KEEP it in a teapot, and out of lawyers' offices,
departmental/managerial conferences, and the courts.
The merits of the case ("being an unconventional woman"; "the value of
pornography"; "X libeled me"; "My rights are being denied") are irrelevant.
Personally, I think both Larry Lippman and Mark Ethan Smith are WAY out
of line, and I have no interest in defending the viewpoints of either.
I can sympathize with both of them -- Lippman for being unwarrantedly
flamed by Smith (hey; it's happened to me too, for some sort of twaddle
about "diminutive pronouns" that was totally unrelated to the matter at
hand); Smith for having to worry about people trying to take her
account(s) away -- certainly a legitimate concern. But this isn't the issue.
Clearly our network can survive any amount of internal dissention,
flamage, and controversy. This has been proven repeatedly over the
years. But its vulnerability to EXTERNAL pressure is unknown, and
I don't want to see a situation where the ability of people to participate
in Usenet might be curtailed because various persons couldn't resolve
their personal problems without trying to bring down the whole show.
Larry Lippman
I believe that I have demonstrated some possible hazards, and put
the "Smith" matter in perspective in a recent article that I posted to this
newsgroup and misc.legal. Again, I hope to extricate myself from discussions
at this point.
However, there is one bit of unfinished business, necessitated by
Ms. Maslak's recent article (she apparently could not leave well enough
alone), which I present below:
In article <84...@sri-unix.ARPA>, mas...@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) writes:
> Not so long ago, I was the voice that proposed a soc.men group,
> solicited and gathered votes for it, hoping that it would once again
> make soc.women a place where reasonable discussion could take place.
The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect
Ms. Maslak's definition of "reasonable discussion".
> He disregarded the "rules of etiquette"
> in the group and generally made a nuisance of himself.
The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect
Ms. Maslak's definition of "rules of etiquette".
> Anyone who took the trouble to look into soc.women below the surface
> of the last week would know that Larry's tactics have not been
> appreciated by most of the regular posters there, men and women
> alike.
The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect
Ms. Maslak's definition of "acceptable tactics".
> Mr. Lippmann, and Mr. Uhrig, may have enough tunnel vision that they
> don't realize that their attitude and behavior has been at least as
> objectionable to some of us, to whom soc.women was an important
> resource, as Mark's has been to them.
The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect
Ms. Maslak's definition of "non-objectionable attitude and behavior".
> Mark is a skillful debater, and
> pulls no punches. His articles are often painful to read. But the
> pain is from seeing the truth, naked, held up like a mirror.
And best of all, the quotations at the end of this article apparently
reflect Ms. Maslak's definition of "skillful debating" and "truth".
I now present to you the person so WORSHIPPED by Ms. Maslak,
Ms. Minerva and others, the one and only alleged "Mark Ethan Smith":
In article <54...@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era...@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
$$> The reason scientists were more than 99% male for thousands of years,
$$> is because they did science with the thing between their legs, having
$$> little or nothing between their ears.
In article <18...@killer.UUCP>, e...@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
$$> Or just to gratify the egos of a bunch of brainless pricks?
$$> For thousands of years, it was necessary to have a penis in order
$$> to do science. Do you believe it is necessary to have a penis to
$$> do science? Do you think people who believed that were really
$$> scientists?
In article <16...@dasys1.UUCP>, msm...@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
$$> As for the obssessed
$$> murderer, I have some of his letters detailing his obsession
$$> explicitly. Had I not been homeless, I believe I could have stayed
$$> in this country without too many problems with him, but to be homeless
$$> and have a murderer obsessed with you is much too vulnerable a position
$$> for anyone to have to endure. Most of the people who attacked me
$$> on the Well, m-net, and chinet, were indeed Libertarians. Some were
$$> anti-Semitic, some were only anti-anybody-in-touch-with-reality.
In article <17...@dasys1.UUCP>, msm...@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
$$> As to the theory that things have changed, I wrote almost a hundred
$$> lines responding to you, and got nuked off and the article was
$$> lost. I will try to recreate it, but my tone will not be as calm
$$> and happy as it was before the fascist pig nuked me offline. I have
$$> asked the SA to check the activity files. And no, it was not a problem
$$> at my end or with line noise.
$$> ...
$$> But this *is* a fascist country, and I
$$> rarely manage to get through an article without being nuked off
$$> two or three times, no matter what system I'm on, since I use
$$> public access systems and the fascists have access to them also.
$$> ...
$$> Oh yes, I'm sure that the fascists who make every attempt to interfere
$$> with my postings, will now say that I'm paranoid again
I apologize for having to subject the readers of these newgroups
to the vile ravings contained in these quotations. But, perhaps NOW you
will understand the issue: do the above articles represent a reasonable
use of the Net, is it ABuse of the Net?
For any system administrators of sites which continue to allow
"Smith" to post, are you PROUD to have this person speak in behalf of
your organization? Are you SO PROUD that you will even endure the
continual accusa
leo...@qiclab.uucp
<and gender in soc.women that was being carried out on a level that was
<generally tolerable and interesting. He disregarded the "rules of etiquette"
<in the group and generally made a nuisance of himself. When the rebuttals
<to his messages began to indicate the level of anger and frustration that
<he was arousing in Mark and other soc.women participants, he went crying home
<to get his "big brother the attorney" to take up his fight for him.
<of the last week would know that Larry's tactics have not been
<appreciated by most of the regular posters there, men and women
<that drove a core group of many of the soc.women regulars to a
<woman-only mailing list; kill files and the "n" key weren't enough
<anymore. I was one of those; I can't stand to read the group that I
<worked very hard to protect.
I don't read soc.women, in fact I don't read _any_ of the soc groups. So
all I've seen of this war have been postings in news.admin, news.sys.admin,
news.misc, and misc.legal.
From what has appeared in the _those_ groups, this war started due to Mark
accusing the sys admin at violet.berkeley.edu of _deliberately_ interfering
with Mark's ability to read and post from an account there. No "it looks
like" or "possibly".
Larry and others pointed out that the maintenance of the news software on
that system was a rather low priority of a sysadmin who had a lot of other
higher priority things that _had_ to be done.
From Mark's own postings it appears that Mark just _assumed_ that the problem
was a deliberate attack. I do not recall if Mark had attempted to contact
the sysadmin before posting the flame. I _do_ recall that Mark claimed that
the sysadmin was someone other than the real sysadmin (as I recall, the
person Mark accused turned out to be the sysadmin of berkely.edu, which is
a different system)
Larry also pointed out that Mark's comments were slanderous. I'm not a
lawyer, so I don't know if they really are or not, but the wording and
tone do _not_ belong in any of the news.* groups!
From the evidence _I_ have seen, it would appear that Mark is prone to
jumping to conclusions. And that Mark likes to flame. Neither of which
belong in a posting to news.admin or the other _news_ groups involved.
Apparently Mark has been on the receiving end of a lot of discrimination.
This does not give Mark the right to assume _in a public message_ that a
problem is due to further discrimination. Making such assumptions shows
prejudice on _Mark's_ part.
Mark is free to believe anything the he wishes to about men and their
motives. Even specific men. Similarly, they can believe anything they
wish to about Mark. Neither side may act as if these prejudices are true
_without evidence_. Doing so is discrimination. Which I thought Mark
was against?
(to use races as you did in your example: I'm perfectly free to believe
that all blacks are criminals. I am _not_ free to act as if this were true.
Most especially, I am not free to assume that a _specific_ black is a
criminal, UNLESS I HAVE HARD EVIDENCE.)
Remember? "Innocent until proven guilty."
What Mark could have done (and _should_ have!) was post a message describing
the problem and stating that he couldn't contact the sysadmin. _Without_ the
conspiracy theory! The comments to the effect of "I'm mad, I paid good money
for this account and it isn't working" could even have been left in. After
all, they are the truth!
(note that I am restricting this to misc.legal. This stuff never belonged
in news.admin in the first place.)
ps. before anyone tries to flame me for the opinion mentioned above with
regards to blacks, not that it was an example NOT MY BELIEFS!
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
Mike Stump
In article <40...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> mag...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR) writes:
+---------------------------------
|Mike Gore asserts the following:
|
|> Yes you could by faking the header - BUT once the forged message
|
|I challenge him to figure out where this article originated from,
|where it was inserted into the network, and who really wrote it in
|the first place. I believe that the network does not have sufficient
|audit trails to make this possible.
|
+---------------------------------
And it turns out you did; really, you should have let someone
else send him the article.
Too simple, it was from:
da...@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack)
at U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences
You made it much to easy David, a little more work on you
part, and it might have been a little harder.
--
Mike Stump, Cal State Univ, Northridge Comp Sci Department
uucp: {sdcrdcf, ihnp4, hplabs, ttidca, psivax, csustan}!csun!aeusemrs
Joe Buck
In article <21...@kitty.UUCP> la...@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
[ nothing in the article is really worth quoting -- read it if you like ]
Larry accuses Mark of "vile ravings" unsuitable for the net. Larry,
the purpose of soc.women is to discuss problems women face. Among
the problems are poverty, rape, violence, and harrassment. Mark has
experienced them all first-hand and talks about them, in strong
language, in the appropriate forum.
You complain about certain specific passages in Mark's postings.
For example, 99% of scientists have been male for most of the time
there have been scientists. Mark addresses this question in a blunt
way (your quote):
>$$> For thousands of years, it was necessary to have a penis in order
>$$> to do science. Do you believe it is necessary to have a penis to
>$$> do science? Do you think people who believed that were really
>$$> scientists?
I don't understand your objection. Do you object to the use of the
word "penis"? Seems appropriate in this context.
Some of your other objections are to Mark's descriptions of his own
life. Yes, Mark has been raped (and was made pregnant by the rape),
was homeless, was threatened with violence many times in life, and has
had so many horrible experience that a weaker person would find it
difficult to go on living. It has obviously never entered your head
that things this bad happen to real people. Enough of Mark's story
has been verified by either me personally or by people I trust for
me to know it's true. I have no interest in giving you additional
info on MES, since you'll only use it for purpose of harrassment.
Mark has been booted off three different systems (well, m-net, and
chinet), and is now being subjected to a campaign by you to get the
net to throw him off again. Mark is an imporant voice in soc.women
that needs to be heard, and I admire his courage and commitment to
being heard. Kindly cease and desist your campaign of harrassment.
I'm sorry Mark called you some bad names, but you have not been
damaged by them.
I often disagree, sometimes strongly, with MES. But I'll be damned
if I sit back and allow you to run dissenting views off the net!
--
- Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass...@uunet.uu.net
mas...@sri-unix.uucp
that so enraged most of the readers of soc.women.
Mr. Lippman consistently
-Quoted material out of context with the deliberate intent of
distorting its meaning.
-Refused to recognize any sort of satire, metaphor, or allusion.
-Insisted on nitpicking and wasting our time in circular debates.
-Tried to destroy other's arguments by ignoring their assumptions.
-Imputed to others ideas and positions that they had never taken.
Mr. Lippman seems to think he is the injured party in all this. He
is not. The injured parties are the women of the net who have to
find ways to deal with Lippman and the others of his ilk who have
nothing better to do than barge in to soc.women like ignorant bulls
in intellectual china shops, ignore the forest for the trees,
and then cry foul when they get back what they dish out.
With all the metaphors in that last sentence, I'm sure it will go
right over Lippman's head... and my apologies for the net.bandwidth,
but I wax poetic when aroused.
Valerie Maslak
Felix Lee
> Here is a small part of the history log from watdcsu showing that
>article 4000 doesn't exist - yet.
> It's obvious that the poster thus made a silly mistake in his attempt
>to fake the posting in question.
I think the faker should have used a larger number. As it is, if someone
at watdcsu does post article 4000 within a month, it'll never reach psuvax1.
If the poster had used 3974, I'd never have seen Mike Gore's posting.
I agree that a completely undetectable fake is nearly impossible. (If it
were perfect, would it be fake?) But it's easy to cause a great deal of
confusion. Say I flood the net with bogus cancel messages from watdcsu,
using every other article number from 3974 to 4100, and scattered random
numbers up to 30000. Do you look at cancel messages in control?
I'm curious. How easy is it to trace <40...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>?
Here are two paths, the local path and the one that Mike Gore posted.
> Path: psuvax1!rutgers!ho95e!homxb!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath!watdcsu!magore
> Path: ukma!rutgers!ho95e!homxb!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath!watdcsu!magore
I wouldn't put too much significance to the fact that everything from
rutgers to watdcsu is the same--a good portion of our news comes from
rutgers over NNTP.
The questions are: 1) where was it inserted; 2) what machine did it originate
from; 3) what user faked the message; 4) what interface was used.
If you're interested, send me your versions of the Path:. If you're one
of the machines on the paths above, grep for <40...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
in your history file and mail me the result.
I'm almost afraid this will start off a contest of fake articles.
Maybe someone should forge a 'newgroup news.fake' to contain them
before it goes too far:-).
--
Felix Lee fl...@gondor.psu.edu {cbosgd,cmcl2}!psuvax1!gondor!flee
To have a reason to get up in the morning, it is necessary to possess a
guiding principle. A belief of some kind. A bumper sticker, if you will.
[Judith Guest, Ordinary_People]
da...@geac.uucp
In article <FOR...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> BOGUS-near-clyde writes:
>I challenge him (Mike Gore) to figure out where this article originated from,
>where it was inserted into the network, and who really wrote it in
>the first place. I believe that the network does not have sufficient
>audit trails to make this possible.
># Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home )
># These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
This network not only has enough audit trails to trace back the
author to a site/person having news capabilities at clyde, it also
provides a subset of these audit trails to every recipient.
The path taken to reach this site (2 hops away from watmath) was
[pseudo-watmath] -> clyde -> cbosgd -> ihnp4 -> homxb -> ho95e ->
rutgers -> husc6 -> uunet -> mnetor -> utzoo -> yetti -> geac
Have a look at the usenet map... I usually talk to watmath via
yetti.
If the forger was particularly bright, he may have placed an
arbitrarily long psuedo-path in front of the site he used to send
the forgery, so it behooves the mail administrators of sites on this
path to check their logs and news articles.
--dave (hi mikey!) c-b
Minerva
[ bunch of Larry's stuff deleted ]
[then a bunch of stuff out of context by Mark to give a one-sided view ]
First of all, I do NOT worship Mark, I just prefer his postings in soc.women
to yours.
Second of all, I was objecting to Werner's misdirected attempt of supporting
you in all of your causes - like selectively having people thrown off the net.
> I apologize for having to subject the readers of these newgroups
>to the vile ravings contained in these quotations.
And what about the vile stuff YOU have posted to soc.women. Aren't you just as
guilty with the attacks you made on Eileen McGowan? Or are there one set
of rules for Mark Smith and another for you?
And what about accusing Mark of fraud and deception?? From your first posting
on this subject in news.admin:
======================= beginning of article excerpt ===========================
From: la...@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Mark Ethan Smith: For real?
Summary: "Smith" should be identified and its computer accounts revoked
Date: 30 Sep 87 01:27:57 GMT
No Usenet site should have anonymous users. Usenet is not (or
SHOULD not) be conducted as a juvenile BBS. Usenet feeds are propagated
in part by institutions using public funds. Public funds should not be
used to propagate the whimsical, irresponsible ravings of a person who
^^^^^^^^^^^^
uses fraud and deception in concealing their identity. If "Smith" wishes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to engage in such anonymous activity, let him/her/it confine postings
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to privately owned BBS's - not Usenet.
[ rest of the article deleted ]
<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
================================================================================
So, now that you KNOW that Mark Smith really exists and that that the legal
name of that person, how about a more appropriate apology?
Adding this to your most recent disregard of a person's privacy by posting
the home address of Mark, you just keep providing proof that you're one of
the biggest hypocrites of the net.
>But, perhaps NOW you
>will understand the issue: do the above articles represent a reasonable
>use of the Net, is it ABuse of the Net?
Then your use also represents abuse. Oh, what? No? Oh, that's right, you're
*Larry Lippman*, respected member and contributor to the Net. BLECH.
> For any system administrators of sites which continue to allow
>"Smith" to post, are you PROUD to have this person speak in behalf of
>your organization? Are you SO PROUD that you will even endure the
>continual accusa
Well, the rest of the article didn't reach this site - it's just as well.
However, let me address the following:
1. Pride has nothing to do with it. And despite your best arguments,
a site's responsiblity for it's posters is not as clear cut as you have
tried to make it.
2. Mark Smith has never spoken on behalf of these various sites. He has
stated again and again that he speaks only for himself, not for the site
he posts from.
Well. I feel much better having said that. Go ahead and flame me, I don't care.
Actually, I'll be quite surprised if he acknowledges this at all.
Minerva
Jean Marie Diaz
>From what has appeared in the _those_ groups, this war started due to Mark
>accusing the sys admin at violet.berkeley.edu of _deliberately_ interfering
>with Mark's ability to read and post from an account there. No "it looks
>like" or "possibly".
1) Your recounting of events is partially incorrect. 2) That's not
where this war started. This bit of silliness started because Larry
believes that Mark slandered him. (And I'm not touching that with a
10-foot pole.)
>From Mark's own postings it appears that Mark just _assumed_ that the problem
>was a deliberate attack. I do not recall if Mark had attempted to contact
>the sysadmin before posting the flame. I _do_ recall that Mark claimed that
>the sysadmin was someone other than the real sysadmin (as I recall, the
>person Mark accused turned out to be the sysadmin of berkely.edu, which is
>a different system)
Mark (and others who read news off of violet.berkeley.edu) have tried
many times to have the news system on that machine fixed. The problem
is that it is "unsupported", ie, it will be fixed when someone gets the
proverbial "roundtoit". Mark made a public accusation, and later made a
public apology, something I have not yet seen from any of the people who
are trying to get him thrown off the net with every bit of means and
influence they can muster.
>[...] the wording and
>tone [of Mark's comments] do _not_ belong in any of the news.* groups!
Mark has not, to my knowlege, ever originated a discussion in any of the
news.* groups. If you wish to complain about the invasion of your tidy
little technical groups, complain about the people who feel it necessary
to try to get Mark's accounts pulled by complaining (in public, yet,
instead of by email) to system administrators in news.admin.
I often disagree with Mark, but I see no reason to let you feel
complacent with your half-truths.
AMBAR
am...@bloom-beacon.mit.edu {backbones}!mit-eddie!ambar
da...@geac.uucp
>appreciated by most of the regular posters there, men and women
>alike.
I am one of the persons who has not appreciated Miss Lippman's
reducing the signal/noise ratio.
>Basically what Mr. Lippman has been doing is akin to walking into a black
>neigborhood and yelling "Look at all the niggers" and then wondering
>why he was clouted from behind with a baseball bat in a dark alley.
And this nigger is getting SERIOUSLY annoyed.
--dave
Russ Cage
[referring to Mark Ethan Smith, of many loginids and sites]
> Mark has been booted off three different systems (well, m-net, and
> chinet), and is now being subjected to a campaign by you to get the
> net to throw him off again.
The above-quoted sentence is false and libelous to Mike Myers, M-Net's
owner and sysop. I can say for certain that it was made with a reckless
disregard for the truth, since a cursory investigation would reveal that:
1.) Mark Smith *never* had an account purged from M-Net for any
reason whatsoever,
2.) Mark left M-Net on his own volition (and ran a conference called
"human viability" until his departure), and
3.) Even after his un-coerced departure from M-Net, Mark returned
on occasion to use the loginid 'reason' to exchange mail with
Mike Myers, the sysop. I have seen the loginid in use.
Marks views met with no more popularity on M-Net than with Larry Lippman;
however, Mark was not "booted off of" M-Net any more than Larry could
boot Mark off of Usenet. All of the above information could be gathered
with a brief quiz, via e-mail, of a sample of users. M-Net is a public
access system [ (313) 994-6333 ], so there is no excuse for pushing
misinformation over Usenet when you could check for yourself.
> - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
> Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass...@uunet.uu.net
--
The above are the official opinions and figures of Robust Software, Inc.
If someone offers you drugs, just say "Thanks, man!"
Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ]
Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
<Hello All,
< The current discussion has been whether it is _impossible_ or not to
<detect faked usenet articles - most recently re: <39...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
<
<article 4000 doesn't exist - yet. No need to take my word for this as most
< It's obvious that the poster thus made a silly mistake in his attempt
<to fake the posting in question.
It's not a silly mistake - it's required if the forgery is to go
anywhere. Since it never reaches the "originating" machine, it's
probable that the forgery wouldn't be detected until after the forged
messagle id had come into existence. With some care as to content,
it's even possible that the forgery won't be noticed until the forged
article had expired on most sites.
BTW, 40...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu does exist - everywhere but at watdcsu!
So when watdcsu generates that message id, it won't propogate. You
might want to do something about that.
<But rather then letting this issue get too clouded I would
<to say that my original observations were in regard to a statement that
<it was _impossible_ to detect faked articles.
You also said that it would be simple to determine where the forgery
_didn't_ come from, and that you could probably determine where it did
come form. [See attached forgery for the quote.] But now we hear:
<The importance of backtracking <40...@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> is very low.
The attitude "Yes, I can do it, but it isn't worth the effort in this
case" is one commonly found in charlatans. I don' think you're a
charlatan, I merely think you're wrong. You've got a test case here -
please prove you have the ability you claim you do.
On a more important note, I suspect that computer log files will be as
admissable in a court of law as audio tape recordings. Would one of
the lawyers on the net care to comment (mcb)?
<mike
--
Tell me how d'you get to be Mike Meyer
As beautiful as that? m...@berkeley.edu
How did you get your mind ucbvax!mwm
To tilt like your hat? m...@ucbjade.BITNET
la...@kitty.uucp
> And what about the vile stuff YOU have posted to soc.women. Aren't you just as
> guilty with the attacks you made on Eileen McGowan?
Would you like me to post (to soc.women only, of course), the complete
text of all of the articles by Ms. McGowan which I used as a reference? I
think you KNOW by now that I carefully archive and reference articles before
I make a statement.
> Or are there one set
> of rules for Mark Smith and another for you?
One set of rules for all; nothing inconsistent with what I have said.
> And what about accusing Mark of fraud and deception??
With the result of the "court case" investigation, there is even
more probable cause to use the words "fraud and deception".
> So, now that you KNOW that Mark Smith really exists and that that the legal
> name of that person, how about a more appropriate apology?
I don't know that "Mark Ethan Smith" is it's LEGAL name; it could
very well be an assumed name or alias adopted without court order. Using
an assumed name or alias without a court-sanctioned change of name may
facilitate a fraud or deception, but it is not, per se, unlawful; as an
example, many criminals use an assumed name or alias at the time of their
arrest - this in itself is not unlawful.
Using an assumed name or alias (without a court-sanctioned change)
need not disqualify one as plaintiff in a lawsuit (I can provide references
to this point, if you so desire).
If you could give me details to verify "Smith's" alleged previous
name and the court in which a statutory name change to "Smith" occurred,
perhaps I could make a more conciliatory comment. At the moment, no apology
is in order.
> Adding this to your most recent disregard of a person's privacy by posting
> the home address of Mark, you just keep providing proof that you're one of
> the biggest hypocrites of the net.
I posted COMPLETE information from a PUBLIC record. I fail to see
your charge of hypocrisy. You wouldn't want to accuse me of intentionally
omitting something, would you?
> > For any system administrators of sites which continue to allow
> >"Smith" to post, are you PROUD to have this person speak in behalf of
> >your organization? Are you SO PROUD that you will even endure the
> >continual accusa
>
> Well, the rest of the article didn't reach this site.
continual accusations of your own user that persons with root privileges
on your own system interfere with this person's use of your own system?
> Actually, I'll be quite surprised if he acknowledges this at all.
Wrong. BTW, as long as you have invoked my name and compelled me to
be here with the above remark, I would like to do some good and point out
your 12-line .signature is in poor taste since it exceeds the Net guidelines
by a factor of 3.
<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
<> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/
<> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
Mark E. Smith
>Mark has been booted off three different systems (well, m-net, and
>chinet), and is now being subjected to a campaign by you to get the
The third system I was booted off was not m-net. And I wasn't
booted off it, just denied permission to post to soc.women from
that system. I stopped accessing m-net due to the large number
of attacks on me there, but last time I checked I still had access
and if I were willing to submit to attacks and to try to defend
myself against more than 20 attacks a day, Mike Myers would be
happy to stand back and watch. He refused many demands to pull my
password, while personally disagreeing with much that I said, and I
know Mike and m-net to be free of censorship. As for that 3rd system,
the SA felt that the heat directed against me would be directed
against him if he continued to let me post, and I understand his
position, empathize, and only wish that people who disagree with me
would stop blaming the SA's and threatening legal action against sites.
--Mark
--
Mark Ethan Smith {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!msmith
New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/
Mark E. Smith
>flamed by Smith (hey; it's happened to me too, for some sort of twaddle
>about "diminutive pronouns" that was totally unrelated to the matter at
>hand); Smith for having to worry about people trying to take her
>account(s) away -- certainly a legitimate concern. But this isn't the issue.
If, while denying my right to free speech, people deny my right
to equal terms, my right to equal terms becomes as much an issue
as my right to free speech. While Michael may think that certain
rights, or the rights of certain people, such as, perhaps the
rights of women to equal terms, or the rights of minorities to
equal access to public places, are trivial or "twaddle," those
subjected to disparate treatment may legitimately differ with her
views. Indeed, if she thinks that my referring to her *exactly* as
she referred to me was a "flame," then it is obviously not a
trivial matter. Indeed, the hidden reason my accounts were pulled,
may well have been the insistence of certain people that they were
entitled to accord others disparate treatment based upon sex. More
specifically, they believe that certain terms are the sole privilege
of biological males, just as they once believed that certain jobs
and fields of study were the sole privilege of biological males.
I've taken the trouble of posting to soc.women an article on the
subject of equal terms (the subject line reads, "Offensively David
Canzi (Was...Edward C. Kwok)" that only an original intentionalist
who rejects the Bill of Rights could fail to understand as being
a legitimate concern and not mere "twaddle."
If you refer to someone in terms they consider discriminatory, and
they defend their right to equal terms, and others also defend their
right, and you then go into an administrative office or boardroom
so that you can continue to refer to them in a discriminatory manner,
and that administrative office or boardroom is a public place, don't
be too surprized if they defend their rights wherever you see fit
to attack them. Nobody will know what discriminatory things you
say in a private club or a locked office, instead of a public forum.
Ed Hall
it runs on generally aren't, and UUCP (frequently the transport
mechanism for netnews) most certainly isn't. You might be able to
trace the system a message came from, but so what? Was the posting
user really the person whose account was used? Is the system which
fed the article really who the next host down the line thought it was?
Anyone attempting to mount a court case based on USENET postings would
likely be countered with a battery of experts who will testify to
these things. Of course, I think we generally agree that legal action
would likely kill netnews, win or lose--in all probability, ``lose''.
-Ed
Marcus J. Ranum
It is simply not "efficient" to assume that the net is not secure
and to track back the origin of every article that a reader has grounds to
suspect as false.
I'd say the best approach is to remember that usenet is not society
with hard and fast rules, but rather an anarchy in which things like faked
postings can happen. If people are aware that there's a potential problem,
maybe they'll have enough sense to be sceptical when something odd shows up.
--mjr();
--
If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical,
go crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I get as crude as possible. These
days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire
to crudeness... -Johnny Mnemonic
dmc...@watdcsu.uucp
smaller article number, and there would have been no resulting risk of
bona fide articles from watdcsu failing to propagate because of it.
And such a forgery could probably go unnoticed. Do any people or
software actually check for article numbers that are way out of
sequence? I doubt it.
The sequence number for news articles has been updated on watdcsu so
that no innocent person will inadvertently post article 4000@watdcsu
and have it fail to propagate. Article ID's 3979@watdcsu through
3999@watdcsu are available for anyone who wishes to forge them.
--
David Canzi
da...@geac.uucp
>Ms. Maslak's recent article (she apparently could not leave well enough
>alone), which I present below:
>Ms. Maslak's definition of "reasonable discussion".
>
>> The reason scientists were more than 99% male for thousands of years,
Mr Lippman suggest that, since various female commentators have
voiced unkind opinions about verifiable historical facts (qv), he has
the untrammeled right to say unkind things to the participants in
the debate.
I suggest that this does not follow.
Further, I suggest that Mr. Lippman's postings "are consistent
with a person attempting to keep others from speaking [posting] to a
subject by busying them with responding to personal and professional
attacks" (A paraphrase of my old Rhetoric textbook).
-dave (this nigger is gettin PISSED OFF) c-b
Randy Suess
>chinet),
Mark was removed from chinet because he deliberately tried
to harm another user of chinet. He was a welcome addition
to chinet for at least a year before that, and made many
contributions to the conferencing system here. His stories
of Afghanistan were enjoyed by all, and his use of usenet was
never a problem with me. But he got carried away, and revoking
his privileges here was my decision.
--
that's the biz, sweetheart.....
Randy Suess
..!ihnp4!chinet!randy
edh...@randvax.uucp
will I would have had for him. I've been reading his postings on
telecommunications and in other areas for some time, and he has always
seemed to be a model net-citizen. But the sheer vindictiveness of his
recent postings, the raving tone he uses in them, and the hours and
hours he appears to be willing to devote to them, give me the image of a
spoiled child, and not the mature and knowledgable individual I've
always assumed he was.
I know this is news.admin, hardly the place for personal reflections
like the above, except that there is a lesson here that net
administrators should take note of:
Most of us know each other only through our postings (and, perhaps,
Email). We each have a ``net-persona,'' formed solely on the basis of
these communications, and whether we are listened to or not depends
entirely on the good will we have created in our readers. I'm forever
going to view Larry's postings with suspicion because of this flap, even
postings in technical newsgroups, since I now have this spoiled-child
image of him.
Like it or not, net administrators are leaders and role-models for the
net, so it is especially important that you maintain the net's good
will. Please heed the lesson of Larry Lippman.
-Ed Hall
edh...@rand.org
{allegra,ihnp4}!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
Gary Evesson
question. Where does the responsibility of the system administrator begin and
end?
The only way that seems reasonable to me is that the PERSON who posts must
take responsibility for their own words. What right does an S.A. have to censor
peoples postings?. As an S.A. I would not even consider editing users postings -
it would be a gross invasion their rights of free speech.
ga...@fairlight.oz
Gary Evesson
m...@osiris.uucp
Would you all take your Larry Lippman and Mark Ethan Smith and
legalistic whinings and go play out in the street ?! Who cares what
Mark wants to call himself !? Who cares what Larry Lippman wrote [verbatim
copies from the last 3 weeks deleted] ??!?!
You must be truly bored individuals, to think that all this
childish shit is worth bothering with.
--mjr();
--
"We're fantastically incredibly sorry for all these extremely unreasonable
things we did. I can only plead that my simple, barely-sentient friend and
myself are underpriviledged, deprived and also college students."
- Waldo "D.R." Dobbs.
da...@geac.uucp
>... Of course, I think we generally agree that legal action
>would likely kill netnews, win or lose--in all probability, ``lose''.
No, Ed, *you* believe that legal action will kill Usenet news.
It does not follow that everyone agrees with you. (Please! That
would be a silly claim).
I, for example, believe something quite different:
1) No-one has suffered sufficiently from usenet, and has
sufficient funding, to respond with an action before the courts (small claims
courts excepted).
2) The case would probably fail due to an inability to
produce a preponderance of evidence and/or evidence the court could
follow. (Usenet is **subtle**).
3) An individual site involved in a legal action might close
down, especially if it was a leaf node or a public-access system.
Conversely, a large or ARPANET site might respond by funding
countersuits and aggressive legal action toward the suit-using
sufferer.
I suggest that the last point is the significant one, and that
this discussion belongs in misc.legal.
--dave
msm...@dasys1.uucp
>
> Mark was removed from chinet because he deliberately tried
> to harm another user of chinet. He was a welcome addition
Before people start thinking I'm an axe murderer, what happened was
somebody posted my .plan to the net, and I responded by posting
somebody else's .plan to the net. I've gotta cure myself of this
habit of doing unto others as I've been done to--I keep forgetting
that when I get hurt no harm was intended, but if I fight back I'm
a big bad meanie. ;-)
--Mark
[First they tell you to turn the other cheek, then they bust you for mooning.]
b...@ecsvax.uucp
I agree that the question of SA responsibility for postings is a valid one.
I'm not sure, however, that free speech is at issue here. You would need to
prove that posting to usenet is can somehow be construed as a constitutionally
guaranteed right. If it is, then we're may have to provide facilities
for giving logins to everybody and her father that comes in the door.
We're also going to have to be a whole lot more careful about keeping the
news software running correctly or face the possibility of civil liberties
suits by our users. (There's a half a smiley in the last two sentences
in case anyone wants to take me seriously.)
It is my observation (caveat) that while usenet does not really exist as
an entity, the *components* of usenet are privately owned and access to
them is a grant not an entitlement. Ecsvax is not a democracy. Our
users pays their money and takes their chances and -- essentially --
have no rights beyond those we grant them. I have every right to censor
outgoing articles should I choose to do so.
That we don't is largely a matter of ethics, aesthetics and lack of time.
As an SA I can think of no reasonable mechanism for ascertaining whether
articles are libelous or even (as some would have us do) truthful. This
isn't a law office and we don't have paid researchers.
If, however, someone from this site posts an article that is patently
obscene or vulgar and the matter is brought to my attention then I will
certainly exercise my right of censorship as an SA working for my organization.
In the 7 years or so that I've been reading news I can count the number
of articles I might censor unilaterally on 0 hands -- though there have
been several that I might have jawboned the submittor into cancelling.
--
Byron Howes
usenet/bitnet address: bch@ecsvax